Legal Opinion

United Motor Freight Terminal Co. Inc. v. Hixon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 3, 1949No. 32322PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Special ground 5 of the amended motion for a new trial appears to have been abandoned because the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error under “Questions involved” sets forth all other grounds, both general and special, of the motion for a new trial as issues of law upon which they insist, except special ground 5 to which no reference is made. Grounds of a motion for a new trial which are not insisted upon in the brief will be treated as abandoned. See Code (Ann.), § 6-1308, and many cases under catchword “Abandoned.”

Special ground 6 contends that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kelly v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
  2. Dees v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  3. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
  4. Southern Railway Co. v. AnsleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1910
  5. Chapman v. WaldenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Brown v. SheffieldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  2. Ludwig v. J. J. Newberry CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
  3. Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  4. Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  5. Fitzgerald v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API