Burns v. Colonial Stores, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtNichols, J.
1. Although the plaintiff has abandoned the general grounds of his motion for a new trial, the defendants contend that the evidence was not sufficient to have authorized a verdict for the plaintiff, and hence that the errors assigned in the special grounds of the motion, pertaining to the charge of the court, could not have been prejudicial and need not be considered. The defendants insist that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to show that the meat, rather than any of the other four ingredients of the goulash, was adulterated and unfit for human consumption. But there is some…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Central Georgia Power Co. v. CornwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Reaves v. Columbus Electric & Power Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Sappington v. BellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Richmond & Danville Railroad v. White & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Meyer v. Super Discount Markets, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
- Hoch v. Venture Enterprises, Inc.District Court, Virgin Islands · 1979
- Sanders v. Quiktrip Corp.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2019
- Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
- Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.