Legal Opinion

Russ v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 15, 1926No. 17292PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBloodwoeth, J.

1. Bach special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable within itself, without reference to any other part of the record. This court is not required to look beyond the ground itself to learn the facts or to ascertain error. Franklin v. State, 28 Ga. App. 460 (1 a, b, c) (112 S. E. 170). In addition, the name of no witness is mentioned either in ground 5 or 7. This is necessary. Crawford v. State, 33 Ga. App. 612 (127 S. E. 415). Under these rulings grounds 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial present nothing for consideration by this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Adams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
  2. Franklin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
  3. Crawford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  4. Langston v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Trammell v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. City of East Point v. ChristianCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
  3. Nissenbaum v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  4. Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  5. Sisk v. SiskCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927

1 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