Georgia Department of Corrections v. David Lee Couch

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 12, 2015
DocketA13A0223
StatusPublished

This text of Georgia Department of Corrections v. David Lee Couch (Georgia Department of Corrections v. David Lee Couch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Georgia Department of Corrections v. David Lee Couch, (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER, and RAY, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

January 12, 2015

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A0223. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. COUCH.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

In Ga. Department of Corrections v. Couch, 295 Ga. 469 (759 SE2d 804)

(2014) (Couch II), the Supreme Court affirmed our ruling as to Division 1 “albeit

under a different rationale,” and reversed our ruling in Division 2 of Ga. Department

of Corrections v. Couch, 322 Ga. App. 234 (744 SE2d 432) (2013). Accordingly, we

vacate Divisions 1 and 2 of our earlier opinion, and adopt the opinion of the Supreme

Court with respect to those divisions. Division 3 was not addressed by the Supreme

Court and in that circumstance we are required to

(1) read [the Supreme ]Court’s opinion within the context of the opinion being reversed; (2) to determine whether any portions of the opinion being reversed were neither addressed nor considered by the Supreme Court; and (3) enter an appropriate disposition with regard to those portions that are consistent with the issues addressed and considered by [the Supreme] Court. Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563-564 (1) (554 SE2d 465) (2001). In so

doing, we find that to the extent that Division 3 can be interpreted to sustain any

award of attorney fees not consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Couch II,

it too is vacated.1

This case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the

opinion of the Supreme Court.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Miller and Ray, JJ.,

concur.

1 In Division 3, this Court concluded that per OCGA § 9-11-68, the trial court was not required to make findings of fact that litigation expenses were reasonable unless the court concluded that the offer was not made in good faith. Couch, 322 Ga. App. at 239 (3).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shadix v. Carroll County
554 S.E.2d 465 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
Georgia Department of Corrections v. Couch
759 S.E.2d 804 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2014)
Georgia Department of Corrections v. Couch
744 S.E.2d 432 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Georgia Department of Corrections v. David Lee Couch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-department-of-corrections-v-david-lee-couch-gactapp-2015.