Legal Opinion

Minnis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 16, 1922No. 13826PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.

1. None of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial are erroneous, and all were authorized by the evidence.

2. The 2d ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial cannot be considered, for two reasons: (a) “ It is not complete and understandable within itself, and, to ascertain whether the evidence objected to and admitted was material, this court would have to refer to the brief of the evidence. ” Jones v. State, 27 Ga. App. 574 (3) (109 S. E. 515); Cœsar v. State, 22 Ga. App. 796 (1) (97 S. E. 255). (&) “It is not shown what objection to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
  2. Hagood v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  3. Cæsar v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
  4. Hays v. FreshwaterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hamby v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
  2. Hamby v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
  3. Waters v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API