Legal Opinion

Malcom v. Webb

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 14, 1955No. 18869PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hawkins, Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The plaintiff, Paul Webb, in his official capacity as Solicitor-General of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit, was not authorized to maintain the present suit. The solicitor-general’s duties, insofar as civil litigation is concerned, are defined by statutes, Code §§ 24-2908 (5, 9, 10) and 72-202, which authorize him to prosecute or defend any civil action in which the State is interested, unless otherwise specially provided for; and he may collect by rule, order of court, or other legal means, all money due the State in the hands of any…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Meinhard v. SalmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Sumner v. SumnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  3. Peacock v. HorneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  4. Heilig Bros. Co., Inc. v. KohlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. PinyanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  2. City of Atlanta v. BlackSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
  3. West v. Fulton CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
  4. Timbs v. StraubSupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
  5. State Highway Department v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969

13 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