Bienert v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the accusation here is fatally defective in that it does not negative all of the lawful ways under which the defendant might have sold the liquor in question, under the authority of Capitol Distributing Co. v. State, 83 Ga. App. 303 (63 S. E. 2d, 451). It is contended by the defendant in error that the accusation has been previously held by the court to be sufficient, and that this has become the law of the case, in Bienert v. State, supra. The two accusations, although identical, represent two different…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hagar v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
- Sutton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Dalton v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Lawrence v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
- Frazier v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Coleman v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1976
- Merritt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- McKibben v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Raftis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
- Poole v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.