Joiner v. Perkerson

163 Ga. App. 911
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Joiner v. Perkerson. Read the opinion of the Court — 160 Ga. App. 343
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 18, 1982·Published

Opinion

Carley, Judge,

concurring specially

I reluctantly concur in the opinion of the majority. My reluctance is based upon the fact that, in the order denying the motion for new trial, the trial judge specifically stated that he had erred in directing a verdict in favor of appellee. However the trial court had no alternative but to deny the motion for new trial since the same had been filed prematurely and, therefore, it was untimely. Since, as the majority observes, the only enumeration of error asserted on appeal relates to the denial of the motion for new trial, we must affirm the trial court’s ruling. However I note that, in this case, we are not called upon to determine the applicability of the rationale of Division 1 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 147 (269 SE2d 426) (1980).

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

Joiner v. Perkerson, 163 Ga. App. 911 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

163 Ga. App. 911 (Joiner v. Perkerson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cambron v. Canal Insurance
269 S.E.2d 426 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)