Doe v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAndrews, Judge
As addressed in Division 3 of the majority opinion, I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the newspaper is entitled to the requested information. I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s name and identifying information should be redacted from such report. Accordingly, the decision of the superior court to deny the interlocutory injunction should be affirmed.
In the instant case, the name or identity of the victim is not protected by OCGA § 16-6-23 (a). The reason is that the statute does not cover an admittedly false allegation of rape. It is undisputed that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- MacOn Telegraph Publishing Company v. TatumSupreme Court of Georgia · 1993