Court Opinion

ID: 9594694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:32:05.624207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:24.537540
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
I write separately only to point out that this decision emphasizes the value of the reconsideration process in this court. This case origi*409nally was decided by a three-judge division of this court, a division of which I was a member. It was originally decided as a reversal of the trial court, and that decision, like all panel decisions of this court, was necessarily unanimous. Appellees’ motion for reconsideration, however, cogently pointed out why that decision was incorrect; now the whole court has reached a different, and I believe correct, conclusion in affirming the trial court.
Although a motion for reconsideration in this court is no longer a prerequisite to the filing of an application for certiorari in the Georgia Supreme Court, this case is an object lesson in why that reconsideration procedure remains viable and valuable.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Birdsong, Presiding Judge Pope and Judge Ruffin join in this special concurrence.