Legal Opinion

Farrar v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 10, 1939No. 12574PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Justice.

If the relationship set out in the plea in abatement constitutes a disqualification “propter defectum,” the plea was good, and it was error to dismiss the plea. On the other hand, if it was a disqualification “propter affectum,” the plea in abatement would not lie, and it was properly dismissed. The former stands upon grounds that render the juror disqualified to serve as such in any case, and the latter upon grounds that disqualify him only in the case involved. See 28 C. J. 770; Wright v. Davis, 184 Ga. 846 (193 S. E. 757). It is not contended that the jurors whose…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hygrade Provision Co. v. ShermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Omaechevarria v. IdahoSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. Bitting v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
  4. Wright v. DavisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Pippin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
  2. Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1964
  3. Phillips v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
  4. Lanthrip v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
  5. Hardin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2003

17 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