Court Opinion

ID: 9845402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:21:07.700248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:06.074335
License: Public Domain

Banke, Judge,
concurring specially.
1. I am compelled to concur in these cases because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Thompson v. Abbott, 226 Ga. 353 (1) (174 SE2d 904) (1970). It is interesting to note that Thompson mentioned two remote workmen’s compensation cases from this court but did not mention Herring v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 113 Ga. App. 680 (1) (149 SE2d 370) (1966), which specifically held that only those depositions introduced into evidence would be considered at a summary judgment hearing. While Herring has not been overruled, it cannot be followed because of Thompson.
It places a tremendous and somewhat undue responsibility on an already busy trial judge to require him to read fully all pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits on file in order to glean therefrom sufficient information on which to base his ruling — just because these documents are on file. In fact, Thompson seems to require the trial judge to perform duties normally required of counsel, i.e. "... a trial judge should always search the entire record. . Thompson v. Abbott, supra, p. 355.
In my opinion, it should be incumbent upon counsel to search the entire record and tender into evidence those documents they are relying on to support their positions, pointing out specifically the portion of the document believed relevant. Counsel should also have the opportunity to object to those portions of the documents they feel are inadmissible rather than having to rely on the expertise of the trial judge to separate the chaff from the wheat.
2. Summary judgment is a much maligned and much used process. More than half of all civil cases filed in this court are appeals from summary judgments.
Requiring the tendering of documents, or parts thereof, along with providing an opportunity to make appropriate objections would, in my judgment, be helpful *72to counsel for both sides as well as to the trial judge. Preparation of the appeal would be simplified, and since the enumeration of error should point specifically to that portion of the record wherein error is alleged, review of such appeals would also be greatly facilitated. The appellant would know exactly which documents had been considered by the trial judge, and only those documents would need be transmitted to the appellate courts, thereby decreasing costs to the litigants and reducing need for storage space in the appellate courts.
3. Adoption of this practice would not require legislation as CPA § 56 (c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c)) may be construed to mean that only those documents on file on the day of hearing may be introduced into evidence. Summary judgment is considered a very harsh remedy, yet this is the only adversary proceeding in Georgia jurisprudence that does not presently require that the evidence relied on be introduced by, at least, the moving party. I cannot agree that this is just or proper.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Smith join in this special concurrence.