Legal Opinion

Dickerson v. Mangham

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 15, 1942No. 14270PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Justice.

The record does not support the statement made in the plaintiff’s brief that this case involves a claim of compensation. The instrument issued by the bureau, directed to J. J. Mangham, and designated as a subpoena duces tecum, states that the inquiry and investigation that is being carried on is “as to the liability or non-liability of the employing units named above [J. J. Mangham, Bremen, Georgia, and J. J. Mangham, T/A Commercial and Exchange Bank, Bremen, Georgia], to said bureau as employers under the terms of said act.” After directing J. J. Mangham to appear and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thompson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  2. Ex parte CalhounSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  3. Harris v. Early CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  4. Commissioners of Floyd County v. BlackSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Weiner v. Fulton CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
  2. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. CraveySupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
  3. Anderson v. BlackmonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  4. Weiner v. Fulton CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API