Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Allen v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided November 16, 1992No. S92A0837Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSears-Collins, Justice

I agree with Division 1 of the majority opinion. However, I disagree with Division 2 to the extent it requires the DHR to allege a need for additional support when bringing a modification action on behalf of a child who is not receiving public assistance. Therefore, I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the trial court, but I dissent to the remand for amendment of the complaint.

The primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature; however, if the language of the statute is plain and unequivocal, then the intent of the legislature is apparent on the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. TelecomUsa, Inc. v. CollinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1990
  2. Atlanta Casualty Co. v. FlewellenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  3. Department of Transportation v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
  4. Burnam v. WilkersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
  5. Wright v. WrightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API