Cade v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Erankum, Judge.
1. Extraordinary motions for new trial are not favored. Coggeshall v. Park, 162 Ga. 78 (1) (132 SE 632). Such motions are contemplated for events that do not ordinarily occur in the transaction of human affairs. Coggeshall v. Park, 162 Ga. 78 (2), supra. “And such an extraordinary state of facts must have been unknown to the movant or his counsel at the time when an ordinary motion for a new trial could have been filed, and must have been impossible to ascertain by the exercise of proper diligence for that purpose.” Harper v. Mayes, 210 Ga. 183 (78 SE2d 490). Defects which…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Coggeshall v. ParkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Citizens & Southern Bank v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
- Loomis v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
- Jones v. BalkcomSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bohannon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
- Robert L. Cade v. R. P. Balkcom, Jr., Warden, Georgia State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Reese v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2013
- Chester v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Bohannon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.