Legal Opinion

State v. . Rodgers

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 22, 1940PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no appeal lies to this Court from a discretionary determination of an application for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must be allowed on authority of S. v. Ferrell, 206 N. C., 738, 175 S. E., 91, and Jarrett v. Ins. Co., 208 N. C., 343.

The case is not like Crane v. Carswell, 204 N. C., 571, 169 S. E., 160, where the “newly discovered evidence,” as this phrase is defined in the law, was insufficient to invoke a discretionary ruling in favor of the movant.

Appeal dismissed.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Crane v. . CarswellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  2. State v. . FerrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  3. Jarrett v. Winston Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. State v. . ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. State v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. State v. BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. State v. SuddrethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949