Legal Opinion

Goldstein v. Karr

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 3, 1964No. 40743PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Special ground 4 of plaintiff’s motion for new trial assigns error upon an excerpt from the court’s charge to the jury. The objections are based in varying phraseology on the ground that the excerpt eliminated the comparative negligence rule from the jury’s consideration. It is, however, unnecessary for us to rule upon these contentions as the following appears in the trial court’s certificate of approval of the charge: “At the conclusion of the charge, and immediately after the jury had retired, counsel for defendant and counsel for plaintiff approached the bench and…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Co. v. Farmers Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  2. Sims v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  3. City Bank of Macon v. KentSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
  4. Hooks v. THE STATESupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
  5. Ehrlich v. MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Yale & Towne, Inc. v. SharpeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  2. Sheffield v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  3. Georgia Power Co. v. MozingoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
  4. Harrison v. ArrendaleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
  5. Rauch v. ShanahanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972

8 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