Charles L. Weltner

The case involved residents of Brunswick, Georgia, seeking to block the city from conveying dedicated public park land to a church, arguing that such alienation of park property required specific legislative approval beyond general municipal powers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, finding no factual disputes and ruling that OCGA § 36-37-6(c) permits a municipality to trade or swap property when deemed in its best interest, with no exemption for parks. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, holding that the statute's authorization for property trades applies to dedicated park lands, as the code reorganization did not alter prior substantive law or impose additional restrictions, and historical legislative acts confirm the General Assembly's role in granting such authority. The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretation principles, emphasizing that the plain language of the trading provision controls absent any indication of legislative intent to preserve common-law barriers.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a railroad worker who sued his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for job-related injuries, resulting in a jury verdict awarding him $1,000,000. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment upholding the verdict. The majority reasoned that the size of the award, combined with elements of the plaintiff's closing argument, indicated the jury had been influenced by a desire to punish the defendant, which is an improper basis for damages under FELA since only compensatory awards are permitted.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a recall petition filed against a county school board member under Georgia's Recall Act of 1989, with the trial court reviewing the legal sufficiency of the petition's grounds and facts as required by statute. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that four of the five allegations—violations of school board policy, the Open Meetings Act, a federal desegregation order, and failure to pursue state funds—were legally insufficient because they consisted of conclusions rather than reasonably particular facts. However, the allegation that the board member failed to prevent out-of-county or out-of-district students from illegally attending county schools was deemed adequate in form to support a recall election. The court's review was limited to the legal sufficiency of the alleged facts as to form, without assessing their truth or allowing evidentiary hearings, leading to a partial affirmance and reversal with directions to expunge the insufficient allegations.

electionsprocedure

The case involved whether prior testimony from a workers' compensation proceeding could be used to invoke the contradictory testimony rule against a party in a related personal injury lawsuit. The Supreme Court of Georgia decided that the rule from Prophecy Corp. applies to any contradictory testimony by a party, regardless of the proceeding in which it was given, reversing the Court of Appeals' limitation to testimony in the actual case. The court reasoned that testimony remains testimony irrespective of its origin and remanded the case for application of the rule without that restriction.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether a neuropsychologist could offer expert opinion testimony on the cause of organic brain damage allegedly resulting from exposure to the pesticide Aldrin in a personal injury action against an exterminator company. The trial court struck the psychologist's affidavit, ruling that causation of a physical disorder required medical expertise beyond the psychologist's qualifications. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, holding that the practice of psychology is statutorily limited to mental and nervous disorders and does not extend to diagnosing or opining on physical conditions or medical causation. The court relied on the statutory definition of psychology, which excludes the practice of medicine, along with precedent limiting expert opinions to the witness's field of expertise and the trial court's discretion in qualifying experts.

proceduretorts & liability

In Sellers v. Nodvin, the trial court dismissed the defendants' appeal for failing to file the transcript of evidence within the required time under OCGA § 5-6-48, finding the delay both unreasonable and inexcusable due to the appellants' pattern of seeking delays. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the Court of Appeals had applied the correct standard for determining if a delay is unreasonable. The Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal, because the uncontradicted evidence showed the late filing did not delay transmission of the record to the appellate court and there was no showing of prejudice to the appellee or other factors that would render the delay unreasonable under the criteria from Galletta v. Hillcrest Abbey West. The Court reversed the dismissal, emphasizing that filing deadlines are not jurisdictional and that appeals should be decided on the merits when reasonable to do so.

procedure