Fordham v. City of Dublin, 92 S.E. 950 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917). · Go Syfert
Search
Fordham v. City of Dublin, 92 S.E. 950 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Newsome v. State (ga, 2011-02-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Newsome v. State
Ga. · 2011 · confidence medium
We affirmed his conviction in Haynes v. State, 287 Ga. 202 ( 695 SE2d 219 ) (2010). 4 The owner of the Accord testified that the car was stolen and that she reported the theft to police three days before the crimes at issue. 5 Thus, even assuming that appellant’s Confrontation Clause arguments were properly raised, they are without merit. 6 A “shot house” is a location where liquor can be purchased illegally at any hour. 7 The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that the utterances were admissible for impeachment purposes. 8 Specifically, the cases cited by the Cour…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scudiere v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
See Moore v. State, 221 Ga. 636 (1) ( 146 SE2d 895 ); Sligh v. State, 171 Ga. 92, 110 ( 154 SE 799 ); Diggs v. State, 90 Ga. App. 853, 858 ( 84 SE2d 611 ); Goldberg v. State, 20 Ga. App. 162, 163 ( 92 SE 957 ).
discussed Cited "see" Pelligrini v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Goldberg v. State, 20 Ga. App. 162, 163 (2) ( 92 SE 957 ) (1917); Barnes v. State, 57 Ga. App. 183 (1) ( 194 SE 839 ) (1938); Hodges v. State, 85 Ga. App. 617 (2) ( 70 SE2d 48 ) (1952); Bunge v. State, 149 Ga. App. 712, 716 (4) ( 256 SE2d 23 ) (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fordham
v.
City of Dublin
8359.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jun 13, 1917.
92 S.E. 950
W. A. Dampler, for plaintiif in error.
Wade.
Published
Wade, C. J.

This case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barlow v. Americus, 146 Ga. 805 (92 S. E. 643). The municipal ordinance which prohibited any person from having in his possession within the corporate limits of the city of Dublin' alcoholic, malt, spirituous, or intoxicating liquors or other drinks which if drunk to excess will produce intoxication, for the purpose of sale or of illegally disposing of said liquors or other drinks, was superseded by the provisions of section 2 of the act of 1915 (Georgia Laws, 1915, Extraordinary Session, p. 77), and the jurisdiction of the municipality to punish for the offense of keeping intoxicating liquors for sale under the ordinance above referred to was extinguished by the 'said act of the legislature. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in refusing to sanction the certiorari, by which it was sought to bring into question the validity of the ordinance penalizing the storing of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of sale within the corporate limits of a municipality of this State.

Judgment reversed.

George and Lulce, concur.