Legal Opinion

Israel v. Joe Redwine Insurance Agency

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 2, 1969No. 44485PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Deen, Judge.

The original Code of 1863 contained two provisions relating to the entry of nunc pro tunc material in judicial proceedings. The present Code § 24-104(6) was then in effect and provided: “Every court has power ... to amend and control its processes and orders, so as to make them conformable to law and justice; and to amend its own records, so as to make them conform to the truth.” Former Code § 81-1201, repealed by the Civil Practice Act, stated that “as a general rule the court will amend the entries of its orders on the minutes, on the records and other proceedings, nunc protunc”…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Armstrong v. LewisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1878

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Leader National Insurance v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  2. Maloy v. Planter's Warehouse & Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  3. Cunningham v. CanslerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  4. Savannah Iron & Fence Corp. v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
  5. Handley v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974

4 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