Loomis v. Edwards
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.
1. (a) Extraordinary motions for a new trial are not favored. Coggeshall v. Park, 162 Ga. 78 (132 S. E. 632). This principle is elementary. There are decisions to the same effect too numerous to cite. We cite the Coggeshall case because it involves other questions that are pertinent here.(b) It is contended by the applicant that, since the law provides that a judge in the court below exercise discretion in passing upon an extraordinary motion for a new trial, the trial judge in the instant case committed reversible error in refusing to entertain the extraordinary motion. This contention is…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Fulford v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
- Loomis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Cox v. HillyerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Harris v. RoanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. NussbaumOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
- Bishop v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Fulford v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Huffaker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.