Beazley v. DeKalb County
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
Upon the call of the case for hearing before the trial court on the rule nisi, the intervenor moved for a continuance on the ground that he had been out of town and had not known about the proceeding until four or five days before the hearing, and that he had not had ample time in which to locate witnesses and secure their testimony in support of his intervention. No witnesses had been subpoenaed in his behalf at that time. Code § 81-1419 provides that “applications for continuances are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court.” Code § 81-1416 provides that “in all cases the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Maner v. DykesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Griffin v. VandegriffSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- State v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- City of Waycross v. HarrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Dade County v. State of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Beazley v. DeKalb CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
- McLellan v. Chilivis, Cochran, Larkins & Bever, LLPCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2010
- Beazley v. DeKalb CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953