Davis v. Emmis Publishing Corp.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1ConcurrenceEldridge, Judge
While I fully concur in the opinion, I write to clarify that OCGA § 9-11-11.1, the anti-SLAPP statute, had no application to this case and that such statute must further only the intent of the General Assembly by statutory construction. OCGA § 1-3-1 (a); City of Roswell v. City of Atlanta, 261 Ga. 657 (1) (410 SE2d 28) (1991). Where the meaning of a statute is clear, plain, and unambiguous, the courts must construe it according to its terms. Hollowell v. Jove, 247 Ga. 678, 681 (279 SE2d 430) (1981); Atlanta &c. R. Co. v. Wise, 190 Ga. 254, 255 (1) (9 SE2d 63) (1940). Statutes in derogation of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hollowell v. JoveSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
- Moore v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- City of Roswell v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1991
- Mott v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
- Haddon v. Shaheen & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.