Legal Opinion

MacH v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 9, 1965No. 41214PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PannUll, Judge.

Where a ground of a motion for new trial is not complete within itself and makes no reference to the portions of the record necessary for its consideration, it is too incomplete to be passed upon. Mutual Benefit Health &c. Assn. of Omaha v. Hickman, 100 Ga. App. 348, 364 (111 SE2d 380); Taylor v. Murray, 102 Ga. App. 145 (1) (115 SE2d 776); Cotherman v. Cotherman, 218 Ga. 486 (128 SE2d 728); Code Ann. § 6-901. Under this ruling, special grounds 4 and 5 of the motion for new trial are not sufficiently complete for consideration by this court.

Under the ruling by the Supreme Court…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kendrick v. KendrickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
  2. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. HickmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
  3. Taylor v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
  4. Cotherman v. CothermanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dix v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  2. Collins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  3. Willingham v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API