# City of Gainesville v. Dodd

> Supreme Court of Georgia · November 25, 2002 · 275 Ga. 834

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9615473

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF GAINESVILLE v. DODD Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** November 25, 2002
- **Citations:** 275 Ga. 834; 573 S.E.2d 369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sears
- **Judges:** Hines, Sears, Thompson, Benham, Hunstein, Carley
- **Cited by:** 237 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9615473

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that under certain circumstances, “judicial economy may be maximized by returning the case to the trial court upon the appellate court’s discovery that the trial court relied on an erroneous legal theory or reasoning,” and that the decision whether to pursue such a cou…
- holding that appellate courts retain discretion in determining whether to apply the right-for-any-reason rule and consider alternative legal theories not addressed by the trial court, or to vacate order and remand for the trial court to consider alternative legal theories in t…
- holding that appellate courts have discretion in whether to apply right for any reason rule to address grounds raised in a summary judgment motion, upon which the trial court has not ruled
- explaining that an appellate court has discretion to return “the case to the trial court [to] allow the trial court to issue rulings on grounds advanced, which could then serve as a basis for appellate review”
- recognizing that both principles “advance substantial 12 interests,” and advising that “the circumstances of individual appeals must guide the appellate courts as to how best to proceed”

## Opinion text

SEARS, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially.
I tend to agree with much of the reasoning of the majority opinion. However, I cannot agree with the majority’s attempt to reconcile the right for any reason rule with the notion that an appellate court cannot affirm a trial court’s ruling if it was based upon an erroneous legal theory. I believe that appellate courts generally have an obligation to affirm a grant of summary judgment under the right for any reason rule., even if the trial court relied upon an erroneous legal theory. I also believe that appellate courts may decline to review any issue that has not been ruled upon by the trial court if that issue has not been adequately briefed and/or argued by the parties on appeal.
*840 I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this special concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9615473. Public record. Not legal advice.