Legal Opinion

Posner v. Koplin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 16, 1956No. 36281PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.

A motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions has been made (a) because the bill of exceptions is premature; (b) because Sarah Koplin and Simon Mendel, executors of the estate of H. Mendel, deceased, are improperly named parties defendant in the bill of exceptions, they never having been made parties in the trial court; (c) because the trial court improperly dismissed the petition, and (d) because the statement “The plaintiff, Jack Ralph Posner, names himself as plaintiff in error herein and names Mrs. Sarah Koplin and Simon Mendel, executors of the estate of H. Mendel, deceased, as defendants…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Bradstreet Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  2. Allen, Ball & Co. v. Mayor of SavannahSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
  3. Alexander v. DeanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
  4. McElhaney v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  5. Davis v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1950

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Anderson v. the Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
  2. Harwood v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  3. Emmanuel v. BovinoConnecticut Superior Court · 1966
  4. Anderson v. Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API