Court Opinion

ID: 9588084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:29:47.745364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:24.040991
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring specially.
Although the majority has eloquently expounded the law applicable to this case, my concurrence in the judgment is with reticence simply because I believe the result to be unjust, albeit demanded by the authorities cited. Specifically, I am constrained to agree with the result because, and only because, of the decisions requiring full faith and credit not only to the substantive issues raised in the foreign court, but also to that court’s determination of jurisdictional issues which, as here, were raised in the foreign forum by the party now attacking jurisdiction. I concur with the same uneasiness which I perceive was felt by this court in Paris v. Cooper, 158 Ga. App. 212 (279 SE2d 507) (1981): “Therefore, although [I am] of the firm opinion that the . . . [California] decision is both discriminatory and erroneous, we have no option but to affirm the summary judgment of the trial court . . .” Paris, supra at 215.