Crudup v. State of Georgia
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Judge.
1. In Garland v. State of Ga., 99 Ga. App. 826, 832 (110 SE2d 143), this court held that a judgment of contempt must contain “factual holdings setting out the misconduct on the part of the attorney such as will disclose to a reviewing court the subject matter upon which the discretion of the trial court operated.” The judgment in this case meets that test.
2. The reconciliation between an attorney’s duty to maintain respect due the courts1 and his duty to protect and advance the interests of his client2 may prove to be at times difficult. Nevertheless, it is basic that even as to…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Bridges v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Craig v. HarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Ex Parte TerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Pennekamp v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Farmer v. HoltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- In Re JeffersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 2008
- Crudup v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
- Berman v. BermanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
- In Re BookerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.