Court Opinion

ID: 9609774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:31:25.385401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:52.282449
License: Public Domain

Clark, Judge,
concurring specially.
Having been the author of the first Cantrell opinion, I find myself compelled to express my personal views. This is not solely because of the disagreement between my colleagues as to the impact of that ruling upon the instant appeal. My main motivation arises from a statement on page 7 of the Attorney General’s brief on the rehearing motion. That statement readsr'Tt is respectfully submitted that Judge Clark’s statement is not only dictum, but erroneous dictum, which could not possibly *452form the basis for 'law of the case’.” Being older and wiser, I now recognize the Attorney General’s assertion to be correct. I erred.
As is stated in the opening paragraph of that previous opinion reported as Cantrell v. State of Georgia, 129 Ga. App. 465, supra, there were then two issues before this court. The first was a question of jurisdiction as between the Board of Trustees of the State Employees’ Retirement System and the State Personnel Board. The second question was that matter of medical procedure. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. In its affirmance (231 Ga. 704 (203 SE2d 493)) that tribunal limited its decision to the jurisdiction issue. Since the stated two issues constituted the ratio decidendi, those were the sole matters that should be regarded as "the law of the case.” Accordingly, I agree with the determination by Judge Stolz on this point.
Having further pursued the problem because of the Attorney General’s declaration that I erred in writing as a dictum that the employee could have used certiorari, I confess mea culpa. The correct legal proposition on this is contained in the foregoing opinion by Judge Stolz.