Legal Opinion

Hall v. Hall

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 23, 1965No. 22819PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

“In all cases either party shall have the right to have the witnesses of the other party ex amined out of the hearing of each other. The court shall take proper care to effect this object as far as practicable and convenient, but no mere irregularity shall exclude the witness.” (Italics ours). Code § 38-1703. This is a right conferred by statute, and its denial is presumptively injurious, unless the contrary appears. Poultryland, Inc. v. Anderson, 200 Ga. 549 (37 SE2d 785); Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764 (95 SE2d 792). But if a witness has not complied with the court’s…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Poultryland Inc. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  2. Montos v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1956
  3. Odom v. OdomSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
  4. Tift v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
  5. Bird v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Dowdy v. PalmourSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
  2. McCurry v. McCurrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
  3. Stuart v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  4. Harper v. HarperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
  5. Hayes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1987

10 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