Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ethridge v. Price

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 5, 1989No. A89A1195, A89A1260Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPope, Judge

I join in Divisions 1 and 3 of the per curiam opinion. However, I disagree that summary judgment should have been granted to defendants Ethridge and Tyre either for the reasons stated by Judge Sognier in his special concurrence or by Judge Benham in his special concurrence.

1. I agree with Judge Sognier that the action against the defendants was not barred by the applicable statute of limitation but not for the reasons stated in his special concurrence. Rather than a new action against the named employees, I believe this action should be treated as an amendment adding parties, which is…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  2. Toombs County v. O'NEALSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
  3. Price v. Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1987
  4. Swofford v. CooperCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1987
  5. Howell v. AyersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973

15 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