Legal Opinion

Thurmond v. Billingsley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 11, 1953No. 34594PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarlisle, J.

It is quite proper for the trial court in its charge to the jury to state the contentions of the parties. Chattanooga Railroad v. Huggins, 89 Ga. 494, 504 (6) (15 S. E. 848); Daniel v. Etheredge, 198 Ga. 191 (2) (31 S. E. 2d, 181); John Deere Plow Co. v. Anderson, 29 Ga. App. 497 (4) (116 S. E. 38). And, from a consideration of the portions of the court’s charge which immediately precede and follow the excerpt complained of, together with paragraph 5 of the petition, it is crystal clear to this court as it must have been to the jury, that the trial court was reading the contentions of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Travelers Insurance v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  3. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
  4. Daniel v. EtheredgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
  5. Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad v. HugginsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. 134 Baker Street, Inc. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  2. Hogan v. City-County HospitalCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  3. Gatliff v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API