McRae v. Hogan, 317 Ga. App. 813

McRae, an African-American retiree, was stopped by Officer Hartman in September 2005 on St. Simons Island for an alleged traffic issue.
She alleged racial profiling, negligent supervision/retention, and harassment against Hartman and county officials based on the stop and responses to her complaints.
The case underwent an extended procedural history with multiple summary-judgment motions; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on grounds later challenged.
The trial court relied on McRae’s testimony and asserted evidentiary issues; discovery had expired and there were disputes over videotape authenticity and channels of communication.
A judge recused, new orders followed, and McRae appealed while various motions to vacate or void prior orders remained pending.
This Court remanded for reconsideration of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and related issues, noting the trial court had addressed several questions only obliquely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand was proper for reconsideration of the summary judgment	McRae contends the court erred by granting or upholding summary judgment on improper grounds	Hartman/County argue summary judgment was appropriate due to lack of response and record facts	Remand is appropriate to reevaluate summary judgment on proper grounds
Whether the protective order and discovery issues were properly addressed	McRae asserts procedural missteps affected admissibility and discovery rights	Defendants contend orders were valid and discovery timing proper	Procedural issues to be reexamined on remand
Whether the trial court erred by ruling on motions while a recusal motion was pending	McRae argues the merits rulings were premature during pending recusal	Defendants maintain rulings were valid despite the recusal motion	Ruling on vacating summary judgment was invalid; recusal status affected proceedings
Whether the court properly handled admissibility and authenticity of evidence, including video	McRae contends video and documents should be admissible and authentic	Defendants object to authenticity and rely on McRae’s testimony	Evidence admissibility and authenticity require remand for proper ruling

Veal v. State, 273 Ga. App. 47 (Ga. App. 2005) (erratic driving can support stop with reasonable suspicion)
Robertson v. Wheeler, 208 Ga. App. 68 (Ga. App. 1993) (no default summary judgment; waiver of evidence rights when no response)
Milk v. Total Pay & HR Solutions, 280 Ga. App. 449 (Ga. App. 2006) (no such thing as default summary judgment)
City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 834 (Ga. 2002) (remands enabled when trial court relied on erroneous legal theory)
Meredith v. Thompson, 312 Ga. App. 697 (Ga. App. 2011) (remand when trial court did not address all theories)
Hodges v. Putzel Electric Contractors, 260 Ga. App. 590 (Ga. App. 2003) (rules for admissibility of evidence in summary judgment)
Lance v. Elliott, 202 Ga. App. 164 (Ga. App. 1991) (authentication of documents; circumstantial proof permissible)
Arevalo v. State, 275 Ga. 392 (Ga. 2002) (circumstantial evidence may prove genuineness of writings)
Riley v. City of Montgomery, 104 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 1997) (fabricating incriminating evidence violates constitutional rights)
Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (falsifying facts to establish probable cause unconstitutional)