Court Opinion

ID: 9570731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:25:43.699289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:25.156424
License: Public Domain

Blackburn, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that some imprecise language in Crocker v. Stevens, 210 Ga. App. 231 (435 SE2d 690) (1993), merits clarification. Specifically, Crocker indicates that the church involved therein was hybrid in nature, neither congregational nor hierarchical, although it would have been more accurate to state that the law applicable to that congregational church, not the church’s classification, was a hybrid blend of traditional congregational and hierarchical jurisprudence. In other words, because the church was congregational in nature but a nonprofit corporation in form, analysis of its internal bylaws using neutral principles of law (a hallmark of hierarchical jurisprudence) would be required to adjudicate the claims brought by the controlling majority faction (a hallmark of congregational jurisprudence). This resulting hybrid jurisprudence, set forth in Reddick v. Jones, 251 Ga. 195 (304 SE2d 389) (1983), was appropriately applied to the facts in Crocker, and, as such, its underlying premise remains sound.
I concur in the majority’s opinion, but not its verbiage, because I strongly believe that one of the main functions of this, or any other court, is to constantly refine our case law and remove ambiguities wherever possible, without harshness.
I am authorized to state that Judge Eldridge and Judge Miller join in this special concurrence.