Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tilley v. Page

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 12, 1986No. 73024Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBenham, Judge

While I concur in Divisions 1, 2, and 3 of the majority opinion, I must respectfully dissent as to Division 4, since I consider it to be a headlong rush to give the nolo contendere plea the coup de grace.

The issue brought into focus by Division 4 is whether a nolo contendere plea should be admissible in a civil action for impeachment purposes. Were I writing merely for the moment I would have little difficulty in siding with the majority, but since I write for posterity, my vision must be future-oriented.

The legislature in its wisdom spoke emphatically on the effect of a nolo contendere plea:…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Favors v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
  2. Benefield v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  3. Whitley v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  4. Hightower v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  5. Beach v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API