Court Opinion

ID: 9561220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:05:32.941357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:41.576729
License: Public Domain

Johnson, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur with both the analysis and the disposition of these two cases as to the substantive issues. I cannot agree, however, with the language of the majority suggesting that the Supreme Court’s reliance, in part, on Ohio authority in support of its conclusion that the probate court had jurisdiction over the matters which are the subject of these appeals either expands the jurisdiction of Georgia’s probate courts or causes confusion in the law of Georgia which “must await future clarification.” Nor do I find it appropriate for this court, on remand, to criticize by implication the Supreme Court’s use of Ohio authority to shed light on the inherent authority of probate courts in Georgia to act in furtherance of their broad statutory obligations to wards in guardianship matters. Legal reasoning is, most often, reasoning by analogy, and the citation of foreign authorities to assist in the orderly development and interpretation of the law is a time-honored tradition of the common law, one which this court itself has employed on many occasions.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Pope joins in this concurrence.
*204Betty Walker-Lanier, for appellant (case no. A97A1716).
Karsman, Brooks & Callaway, Dana F Braun, Gannam & Gnann J. Hamrick Gnann, Jr., Bordeaux & Abbot, Louisa Abbot, Frederick S. Bergen, for appellee.