Legal Opinion
Grant v. Dannals
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided January 7, 1953No. 34284PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The primary contention of the plaintiff in error is that the value of the automobile before and after the collision was not properly proved, as a result of which the verdict for $500 was the result of mere surmise and speculation, and should be set aside. On this question the plaintiff testified as follows:
“As to what parts of my car were damaged, my front bumper—the major damage was to the frame of the car. It was badly distorted and bent. Also the front grill and the right front fender. The body of the car was knocked around where I couldn’t open the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Olliff v. HowardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Dixon v. Cassels Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Georgia Northern Railway Co. v. BattleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Warren v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
- Farm Products Co. v. EubanksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
3Cited by15 opinions
- Johnson v. RooksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Department of Transportation v. DriggersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Atlanta Metallic Casket Co. v. HollingsworthCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Georgia Power Co. v. HarwellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Peoples Loan & Finance Corporation v. Raymond LawsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.