Court Opinion

ID: 9560263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:46:12.269317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:32.976089
License: Public Domain

NAHMIAS, Justice,
concurring.
I was not a member of this Court when Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684 (681 SE2d 122) (2009), was decided earlier this year. Had I been on the Court then, I likely would have joined Justice Melton’s dissent, which concluded that the trial court erred in imposing a permanent injunction against Expedia because the City has an adequate remedy at law. See id. at 693. However, stare decisis considerations are particularly strong in this case, and indeed approach res judicata, where the appellants are sister companies, the appellee is the same, and the facts considered and rulings issued by the trial court are almost identical. The majority opinion in Expedia is not so clearly incorrect or damaging to the law as to justify my not following it under these circumstances. Accordingly, I join the Court’s opinion. I write separately to make clear that I may not support any extension of the reasoning of Expedia in future cases involving less similar circumstances.