Mayor of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co.
318 Ga. App. 152
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Supreme Court reversed and remanded Division 1’s ruling on recusal, directing remand to a different judge in Troup County.
- Because only Division 1 was reversed, we must read the reversed opinion in context and assess consistency of other divisions.
- Divisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were found consistent with and not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision.
- Division 1 is vacated; Supreme Court’s judgment is adopted as the judgment of this court for Division 1; the recusal motion must be reassigned to another judge for disposition.
- If recusal is granted, proceedings after the filing are invalid and an interlocutory appeal may be sought; if denied, the trial court may reenter the verdict judgment.
- On reconsideration, portions not addressed by the Supreme Court remain law of the case, and the court emphasizes not rendering advisory opinions and considering the opinion as a whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vacatur and remand of Division 1 on recusal | Savannah seeks Division 1 vacated and remanded for a new judge to decide recusal. | Appellate court should preserve other divisions and follow Supreme Court framing. | Division 1 must be vacated and remanded for assignment to a different judge. |
| Effect on other divisions not reversed | Other divisions’ merits may be affected by remand posture. | Divisions 2–8 remained consistent and were not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision. | Divisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 remain as decided and unaffected. |
| Consequences of granting or denying recusal on remand | If granted, post-motion proceedings are invalid; if denied, judgment may be reentered. | Remand allows proper disposition while preserving the verdict if denial occurs. | If granted, post-motion proceedings are invalid; if denied, the court may reenter the jury judgment. |
| Scope of reconsideration and law-of-the-case | Remittitur opinion could be modified if not considered by Supreme Court. | Portions not addressed remain law of the case and binding if consistent with Supreme Court’s opinion. | Unaddressed portions stay law of the case; court will not render advisory opinions on potential rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayor &c. Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (Ga. 2012) (Supreme Court reversal and remand guidance on recusal)
- Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560 (Ga. 2001) (read in context of reversed decision and disposition)
- Morgan v. Propst, 301 Ga. App. 402 (Ga. App. 2009) (recusal-related interlocutory appeal framework)
- Hedquist v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 284 Ga. App. 387 (Ga. App. 2007) (unreviewed portions kept as law of the case)
- Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 270 Ga. 730 (Ga. 1999) (law-of-the-case principle and posture of rulings)
- Bibbins v. State, 280 Ga. 283 (Ga. 2006) (no advisory opinions; not render potential error)
- Modern Roofing & Metal Works v. Owen, 174 Ga. App. 875 (Ga. App. 1985) (law-of-the-case posture and evidentiary considerations)