Legal Opinion
Reynolds v. O'Neal
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided February 16, 1940No. 13181PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Justice.
The defendant in error urges that the bill of exceptions be dismissed because no motion for a new trial was filed in the case. It is insisted that plaintiff in error is seeking to review the sufficiency of the evidence without having first filed a motion for a new trial. In support of this motion the defendant cites Beall v. Mineral Tone Co., 167 Ga. 667 (146 S. E. 473), Durden v. Harper, 174 Ga. 570 (163 S. E. 192), and Hamilton National Bank v. Robertson, 177 Ga. 734 (171 S. E. 293). While it is true that under these decisions the sufficiency of the evidence to support…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Beall v. Mineral Tone Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Walker County Fertilizer Co. v. NapierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Mullis v. McCookSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Hamilton National Bank v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Durden v. HarperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Collins v. MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Fleming v. CollinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Scoggins v. PuckettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
- Farmers Fertilizer Co. v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
- Lewis v. City CouncilSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959