Luke v. Luke
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, P. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The terms of the original order, conferring upon the movant the right and privilege of filing amendments to the original motion for new trial and filing and having approved the brief of evidence, were in their scope sufficient to preserve the rights of the movant in these respects until the time at which the motion was finally heard and the brief of evidence filed and approved; especially when we consider the intermediate orders that were passed preserving the rights originally granted. It is true that there were certain orders passed at chambers on dates…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- King v. SearsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Napier v. HeilkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Eady v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- James v. John Flannery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- Shockley v. TurnellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Luke v. LukeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Pierce v. GaskinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Azar v. THUMA, Alias THOMASSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Adams v. SeayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- DeKalb County v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1970
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.