Johnson v. Leibel

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. Leibel

738 S.E.2d 685, 319 Ga. App. 830, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 345, 2013 WL 628695, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 87

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 21, 2013

DocketA10A1047, A10A1048

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 738 S.E.2d 685 (Johnson v. Leibel) 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

Johnson v. Leibel, 738 S.E.2d 685, 319 Ga. App. 830, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 345, 2013 WL 628695, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

In Leibel v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 180 (728 SE2d 554) (2012), the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court in Division 2 of our decision in Case No. A10A1048 in Johnson v. Leibel, 307 Ga. App. 32 (703 SE2d 702) (2010).¹

Because the Supreme Court only addressed one of the divisions in our opinion, 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.²

After so doing, we find that Division 1 (Case No. A10A1047) and Divisions 3-6 (Case No. A10A1048) are consistent with and were not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision, and thus remain in effect. Division 2, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Division 2 of our opinion is vacated, the judgment of the Supreme Court is hereby made the judgment of this Court for Division 2, and the judgment of the trial court denying Leibel’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed. The case is remanded for a new trial consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Judgments reversed. Ellington, C. J., and Andrews, P. J., concur.

Bird, Loechl, Brittain & McCants, Wendell R. Bird, Richard L. Brittain, Jones, Jensen & Harris, Jenny E. Jensen, Richard E. Harris, for appellant. Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young, Michael J. Goldman, Christine L. Mast, Joseph H Wieseman, Balch & Bingham, Michael J. Bowers, Arnall, Golden & Gregory, David J. Marmins, for appellees.

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

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

In Leibel v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 180 (728 SE2d 554) (2012), the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court in Division 2 of our decision in Case No. A10A1048 in Johnson v. Leibel, 307 Ga. App. 32 (703 SE2d 702) (2010).¹

Because the Supreme Court only addressed one of the divisions in our opinion, 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.²

After so doing, we find that Division 1 (Case No. A10A1047) and Divisions 3-6 (Case No. A10A1048) are consistent with and were not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision, and thus remain in effect. Division 2, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Division 2 of our opinion is vacated, the judgment of the Supreme Court is hereby made the judgment of this Court for Division 2, and the judgment of the trial court denying Leibel’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed. The case is remanded for a new trial consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Judgments reversed. Ellington, C. J., and Andrews, P. J., concur.

Bird, Loechl, Brittain & McCants, Wendell R. Bird, Richard L. Brittain, Jones, Jensen & Harris, Jenny E. Jensen, Richard E. Harris, for appellant. Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young, Michael J. Goldman, Christine L. Mast, Joseph H Wieseman, Balch & Bingham, Michael J. Bowers, Arnall, Golden & Gregory, David J. Marmins, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 S.E.2d 685, 319 Ga. App. 830, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 345, 2013 WL 628695, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-leibel-gactapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack