State Highway Department v. Rutland
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1DissentPannell, Judge
I dissent from the ruling in Divisions 1 and 2 of the opinion for the reasons hereinafter shown.
1. It appears that the charge excepted to does not represent a distinctive connected instruction of the court, but is a combination of extracts from the charge. Accordingly, this ground is without merit and insufficient to call for any ruling. Cole v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 65 Ga. App. 204, 211 (3) (15 SE2d 543); King v. Baker, 109 Ga. App. 235, 237 (9) (136 SE2d 8). The charges in the cases above referred to in the majority opinion dealing with similar charges were separately dealt with in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Central Georgia Power Co. v. CornwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- State Highway Department v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Tarver v. DeppenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. LovelaceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- State Highway Department v. WeldonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.