Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Tomlin
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.
We will first consider the insistence that the petition fails to comply with rule 2 of this court, with reference to petitions for certiorari. This is in effect a motion to dismiss the case. In so far as applicable to the present discussion, rule 2 is as follows: “The petition must specify plainly the decision complained of, and the alleged errors. It will not be sufficient to set out the contentions and assignments of error made in the original bill of exceptions or motion for a new trial, but it shall be necessary to plainly and specifically set forth the errors alleged to have been…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Lau Ow Bew v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Forsyth v. HammondSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. B'GosSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Hicks v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Trammell v. ThrogmortonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
- Briesenick v. DimondSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.