Legal Opinion
F. E. Fortenberry & Sons, Inc. v. Malmberg
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided January 23, 1958No. 36868PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*165Quillian, Judge.
Special ground 1 of the amended motion for a new trial assigns as error the following charge: “The defendants contend that the plaintiff violated those sections that I have just read to you. The plaintiff denies this and says that she did not violate any of them. You look to the evidence and see whether or not she did violate any one or all of them. If you believe she did, then go further and inquire and say whether or not it was the proximate cause of the injuries and if you believe it was the proximate cause of the injuries to the plaintiff, then I charge you that that would…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Fielder v. DavisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Frazier v. Southern Railway CompanySupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Dawson Motor Co. v. PettyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Minter v. KentCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Allen Kane's Major Dodge, Inc. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
- Underwood v. Atlanta & West Point RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Kreiss v. Allatoona Landing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Massey v. HendersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Hicks v. HeardSupreme Court of Georgia · 2010
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.