Court Opinion

ID: 9575199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:12:23.25159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:05.357209
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
The writer concurs fully with what is said in the majority opinion. It may be appropriate to add that my concurrence is conditioned on the idea that what is said in the footnotes and opinion are to be taken together and not be to considered alone.
Twenty-five years ago the use of headnotes appeared to be the rule and footnotes the exception. Now the latter are in vogue, and the former almost “a historical oddity.”1 It is pertinent to suggest that the existing opinion-headnote rule should also apply to opinion-footnote2 situations, such as in the instant case:
“Where this court delivers an opinion with headnotes by the court, the headnotes are not to be considered alone as showing what is decided, but the headnotes and opinion are to be taken together.” Walker v. City of Cairo, 31 Ga. App. 307 (2) (121 SE 138) (1923). “Standing alone, the headnote might suggest that there is much merit in the contention of counsel. However, headnotes must be taken in connection with the opinion and the recitals of facts upon which the opinion is based, . . . “ Lankford v. State Life Ins. Co., 57 Ga. App. 626, 634 (195 SE 907) (1938). The headnote rule must likewise apply to footnotes as well as endnotes.

 Fred S. Clark, “Judicial Decisions — Headnotes,” 22 Ga. Bar J. 574; see Bass v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 128 Ga. App. 285, 294 (196 SE2d 485) (1973). (Perceptive predictive prophetic pronouncement presages.) Others have noted that today’s footnote may become tomorrow’s headline.

 See Wright v. MARTA, 248 Ga. 372 (283 SE2d 466) (1981), where nine footnotes are used; and Waters v. State, 248 Ga. 355 (283 SE2d 238) (1981), where there are seventeen footnotes.