Legal Opinion

Gehr v. City of Atlanta

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 17, 1940No. 13071PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. Whether or not the bill of exceptions shows who was the plaintiff in error, it does not designate or otherwise show upon its face who were intended as parties defendant in error. The motion to dismiss the writ of error, based upon this among other grounds, must be sustained. Anderson v. Haas, 160 Ga. 420 (128 S.E. 178); McEachin v. Jones, 165 Ga. 403 (148 S.E. 878); Fowler v. Wheeler, 176 Ga. 189 (167 S.E. 107); Toccoa Electric Power Co. v. Panter, 178 Ga. 258 (173 S.E. 131); Vandivere v. Smith, 183 Ga. 326 (188 S.E. 540); Hancock v. Lizella Fruit Farm, 184 Ga. 73 (190 S.E. 362).

2.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Emanuel Farm Co. v. BattsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  2. Malsby v. ShippSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  3. Anderson v. HaasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  4. Toccoa Electric Power Co. v. PanterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  5. Benson v. LewisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lowe v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  2. Conaway v. ScottSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  3. Echols v. Southern Mining C. Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  4. Ray v. Oconee Naval Stores Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  5. Ray v. Oconee Naval Stores CompanySupreme Court of Georgia · 1940

2 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