Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Howard v. City of Columbus

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 15, 1999No. A99A0680, A99A1258Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSmith, Judge

I concur in the result reached in Divisions 1, 2 (a), 3, 4, and 5 of the majority, but I do not agree with all that is said in those divisions. Because I believe that they contain much that is not necessary to the analysis, I cannot concur fully and must concur in the judgment only as to those divisions.

I must respectfully dissent, however, to Division 2 (b) of the opinion. The majority opinion declares, with respect to Sheriff Hodge, that “the requirements of supervision, including of adequate training and enforcement of all policies, practices, and protocol, are ministerial in nature.” But…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
  2. Department of Transportation v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996
  3. Joyce v. Van ArsdaleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
  4. Seay v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
  5. Cantrell v. ThurmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1998

5 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