Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Doe v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 1, 1994No. A94A1293Published

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

  1. MacOn Telegraph Publishing Company v. TatumSupreme Court of Georgia · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API