Legal Opinion

Bailey v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 15, 1971No. 26196PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hawes, Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus. Appellant represents himself. His brief fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 16, Par. 3, of the Rules of the Supreme Court in that Part 1 thereof nowhere contains a succinct statement of the issues of law as made by the error enumerated, nor does it contain any reference to the part or parts of the record and transcript of the evidence relied upon in support of the contentions of appellant. Appellant’s basic contention is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on the trial *292of the case. Attached as an…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Estes v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969
  2. Hicks v. Maple Valley CorporationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
  3. Law v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1970
  4. Wallis v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
  5. Clark v. PerrinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bailey v. AultCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  2. Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
  3. John W. Bailey v. Allen Ault, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Center, Jackson, Georgia, No. 73-3229 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part ICourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API