Legal Opinion

Caldwell v. Commercial Investment Discount Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 6, 1943No. 29836PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The trial judge cited as authority for his action in passing the nunc pro tunc order the following part of Ga. L. 1933, pp. 290, 297 § 5(b): “Where the amount involved is less than three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, the trial judge shall at any time, in the furtherance of justice, upon such terms as may be just, permit any claim, suit, process, proceeding, pleading, or record to be amended, in form or in substance, or material supplemented matter to be set forth in an amended or supplemental oral claim or pleading.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Greenfield v. HarveySupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  2. McBurnette v. HuffSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  3. Porter v. TerrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  4. Smith v. BuchananSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  5. Woodall v. McCurryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Harper v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  2. MCG Health, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2010
  3. Harper v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API