Legal Opinion

Chandler v. Pollard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 3, 1940No. 28499PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, P. J.

The charge to the jury complained of in the first amended ground of the motion for new trial was as follows : “The plaintiff, if entitled to recover, can only recover upon all or some of the specific acts of negligence as alleged in the petition. In other words, however negligent the defendant may have been in other respects, if it was negligent in any other respects, the plaintiff is restricted in her right to recover to the existence of all or some of the acts of negligence alleged by her, and to show you that such acts of negligence or some of them were the proximate cause of the injury…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Moore v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  2. Reed v. Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
  3. Western & Atlantic Railroad v. ReedCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  4. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. McKeyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
  5. Elberton & Eastern Railroad v. ThorntonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Wright v. the Concrete CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  2. State Construction Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
  3. Luke v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
  4. Williams v. VinsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
  5. Luck v. Western & Atlantic RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945

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

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

Powered by the Exa API