Legal Opinion

Coggeshall v. Park

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 23, 1926No. 5352PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Per curiam

1. Extraordinary motions for new trial are not favored. Perry v. State, 117 Ga. 719 (45 S. E. 77) ; Norman v. Goode, 121 Ga. 449 (40 S. E. 268) ; Burge v. State, 133 Ga. 431 (66 S. E. 243) ; Bass v. State, 154 Ga. 112, 115 (113 S. E. 524).

*792. The extraordinary motions for new trials contemplated by our statute are such as do not ordinarily occur in the transaction of human affairs, as when a man has been convicted of murder, and it afterwards appears that the supposed deceased is still alive, or where one is convicted on the testimony of a witness who is subsequently found, guilty of perjury in…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Myers v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  2. Burge v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  3. Dumas v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1879
  4. Epps v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1855
  5. Fender v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. King v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
  2. Federal Investment Co. v. EwingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
  3. Windsor Forest, Inc. v. RockerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  4. Moss v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
  5. Loomis v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949

20 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