Opinion
A22A0379
08-15-2024
COLLINGTON v. CLAYTON COUNTY et al.
John David Hadden, Atlanta, R. Walker Garrett, Columbus, Ben F. Windham, for Appellant. Jack R. Hancock, Forest Park, Wesley Calvin Jackson, Atlanta, Arash Ali Sabzevari, for Appellee.
John David Hadden, Atlanta, R. Walker Garrett, Columbus, Ben F. Windham, for Appellant.
Jack R. Hancock, Forest Park, Wesley Calvin Jackson, Atlanta, Arash Ali Sabzevari, for Appellee.
Rickman, Judge.
In Codington v. Clayton County, 318 Ga. 29, 897 S.E.2d 361 (2024), the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of this Court in Division 1 of our decision in Codington v. Clayton County, 364 Ga. App. XXV (June 2, 2022) (unpublished). The Supreme Court did not address Division 2 of our decision in which we vacated the trial court’s order with regard to Mary Collington’s claims against Clayton County and remanded the case for the trial court to make a definitive ruling on whether Clayton County is a proper defendant.
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.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. Leibel, 319 Ga. App. 830, 830, 738 S.E.2d 685 (2013). After so doing, we find that Division 2 was not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision. Division 1, however, was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Supreme Court. As a result, Division 1 of our opinion is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is hereby made the judgment of this Court for Division 1. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court as well as Division 2 of the opinion of this Court.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and case remanded with direction.
Miller, P. J., and Pipkin, J., concur.