Legal Opinion

Crawford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 27, 1925No. 16284PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlood worth, J.

1. “A ground of a motion for a new trial, complaining of the court’s ruling upon the admissibility of specified testimony, which does not state the name of the witness whose testimony was admitted or excluded, is too incomplete to be considered. Hunter v. State, 148 Ga. 566 (1) (97 S. E. 523); Adams v. State, 22 Ga. App. 252 (1) (95 S. E. 877), and citations.” Palmer v. State, 28 Ga. App. 567 (112 S. E. 154). Under this ruling special grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the motion for a new trial will not be considered.

2. Ground 4 of the motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred *613“because, over…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Clare v. DrexlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
  2. Hunter v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
  3. McCall v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
  4. Roddenberry Hardware Co. v. MerrittCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
  5. Adams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Trammell v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. Russ v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
  3. Sloan v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
  4. Cook v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API