Cazier v. Georgia Power Company

Summary

The court denied certiorari, and Peterson, P.J., concurred because the law-of-the-case doctrine foreclosed reconsideration of the court’s prior ruling concerning deference to an agency’s interpretation. The concurrence expressed substantial constitutional and doctrinal doubts about treating Georgia law as adopting a Chevron-style regime, emphasizing that courts retain ultimate authority to interpret legal texts and that agency interpretations historically received, at most, persuasive weight. Peterson, P.J., concurring, would have reconsidered the deference doctrine in an appropriate case but concluded that this case was not the proper vehicle.