Legal Opinion
Salmon v. Salmon
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided February 23, 1967No. 23900PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Chief Justice.
1. The granting or refusing of a motion for mistrial is necessarily a matter largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and unless it is apparent that a mistrial is essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial, the exercise of the judge’s discretion will not be interfered with. Manchester v. State, 171 Ga. 121 (7) (155 SE 11); Georgia Power Co. v. Puckett, 181 Ga. 386 (182 SE 384); Hicks v. State, 196 Ga. 671 (27 SE2d 307). The two incidents here involving two separate motions for mistrial resulted from a witness testifying that he took out a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Georgia Power Co. v. PuckettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
- Manchester v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- Eberhardt v. BennettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Middleton v. WatersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Stanley v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
- Locke v. VonaltCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
- Lincoln Land Co. v. PalferyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Vaughn v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
- Bowman v. BowmanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1973
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.