Court Opinion

ID: 9850328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:55:30.223071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:35.473626
License: Public Domain

Frankum, Justice,
dissenting. I am of the opinion that the certiorari in this case should be dismissed upon the principles announced in Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Yesbik, 146 Ga. 620 (91 SE 873), and reasserted in L. & N. R. Co. v. Tomlin, 161 Ga. 749, 759 (1) (132 SE 90) and Hicks v. L. & N. R. Co., 182 Ga. 595, 602 (186 SE 662) and the numerous other cases following them. The question decided by this court to my mind is merely a question of fact, that is: whether or not under the *66facts of the case appearing in the record the argument of counsel was in fact improper and whether the action taken by the court was sufficient to remove its harmful effects, if any, from the minds of the jury, and whether the instruction of the court, merely admonishing counsel for the plaintiff not to touch upon “that matter” again, amounted to a rebuke of counsel as required by Code § 81-1009. The interpretation of the Court of Appeals as to the effect of the argument and the corrective action taken by the trial court being -merely questions of fact should not be disturbed by this court. The rules of law applied by the Court of Appeals and by this court are unquestioned and well established. It is useless to reiterate what has been said by this court in numerous cases, some of them full bench decisions, rendered since the Yesbik case holding that the writ of certiorari was not intended to afford to the complaining party in every case a right of more than one review and that in areas wherein exclusive jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution on the Court of Appeals the decision of that court should be final except in cases where the question sought to be presented on certiorari is one of gravity and importance. The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case could not possibly fall in that category since it would constitute a binding precedent only where exactly the same facts occurred in the trial of another case. But, the likelihood that the same or even a similar argument would be made and the same or a similar ruling by the court be made also is so remote that the decision could not possibly constitute a precedent of general gravity and importance to the bench and bar. In addition to the cases already cited, see the following cases supporting my view of this matter. King v. State, 155 Ga. 707, 712 (118 SE 368); Jones v. Pacific Fire Ins. Co., 159 Ga. 248 (125 SE 470); First Nat. Bank v. Williams, 191 Ga. 611 (13 SE2d 361); Macon News Printing Co. v. Hampton, 192 Ga. 623 (15 SE2d 793); Slaten v. Travelers Ins. Co., 197 Ga. 856 (30 SE2d 822); Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. McDaniel, 203 Ga. 95 (45 SE2d 64).
I am authorized to state that Justice Mobley concurs in this dissent. ,