Legal Opinion

Roth v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 26, 1943No. 30211PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.

The only assignment of error is that the court abused its discretion in not granting a continuance of the case. A motion for continuance is always addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly abused. Sealy v. State, 1 Ga. 213 (44 Am. D. 641); Lipscomb v. State, 58 Ga. 608. “The presiding judge has a discretion in ordering the business of his court and determining whether it is proper to postpone a case or not; and it is only in instances of flagrant abuse in the exercise of such discretion that this court will…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Harris v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  2. Kelloy v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
  3. Wall v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  4. Sealy v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
  5. Hilton v. HaynesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Vaughn v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  2. Waters v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  3. McKenzie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945
  4. Tyree v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
  5. Vaughn v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API