Court Opinion

ID: 9561476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:10:15.374332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:49.947839
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in the majority, but write to note a distinction overlooked by the dissent between this decision and such cases as City of Buchanan v. Pope, 222 Ga. App. 716, 722, n. 4 (476 SE2d 53) (1996). While in Pope the appellant assented by silence to the City’s factual assertions that no disparate treatment or purposeful discrimination had occurred, the parties cannot assent to an issue of law such as the interpretation of an insurance contract which is not included in the record. See generally Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga. App. *5976, n. 1 (479 SE2d 463) (1996) (mere statement of opinion as to legal effect of document not binding admission).