Legal Opinion · Dissent

Crawford v. Kroger Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 10, 1987No. 73909Published

1DissentBeasley, Judge

As noted, appellant’s “motion to reopen” was in effect a motion made pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (g), which allows corrections “arising from oversight or omission.” Subsection (g) does not give a name for a motion seeking such relief, but in Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 147, 148 (1) (269 SE2d 426) (1980), the Supreme Court called it an “action,” the purpose of which is to set aside the earlier judgment. Thus I fully agree that the case is properly before us.

However, I respectfully dissent with respect to the merits. In Cambrón the Supreme Court construed OCGA § 15-6-21 (c) as requiring…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cambron v. Canal InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
  2. State v. PikeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
  3. Taylor v. BentleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
  4. Barthell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  5. Continental Finance & Loan Co. v. Crystal Laundry & Cleaners, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API