Legal Opinion

State v. . Griffin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 23, 1925PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

Pending the appeal, and immediately before the argument, the defendant filed a written motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The motion, of course, must be denied. In S. v. Lilliston, 141 N. C., 857, it is said that because the Court has no jurisdiction it has never entertained a motion of this kind, and that by uniformity of practice and decision the point has been definitely settled against the defendant’s present contention. There are many cases to this effect. S. v. Flood, post (per curiam); S. v. Hartsfield, 188 N. C., 357; S. v. Williams, 185 N. C., 643,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. State v. . SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  2. State v. . DriverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  3. State v. . HartsfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  4. State v. . RoweSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  5. State v. . StarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. . CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. State v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. State v. GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  4. McNinch v. . Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  5. Muse v. . Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1918

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