time-honored rule in Georgia

2008In Ketchup , the time-honored principle of stare decisis and the correlative principle of legislative acquiescence were set aside where the courts’ past construction of the statute “went beyond the legislative intent” of the statute, id. at 57 ; potentially implicated constitutional rights; and ran contrary to the approach of a majority of other states.

2008In Ketchup , the time-honored principle of stare decisis and the correlative principle of legislative acquiescence were set aside where the courts' past construction of the statute "went beyond the legislative intent" of the statute, id. at 57 , 543 S.E.2d 371 ; potentially implicated constitutional rights; and ran contrary to the approach of a majority of other states.

1985Best Concrete Prods. v. Medusa Corp., 157 Ga. App. 97 (5) ( 276 SE2d 147 ) (1981).

1985Best Concrete Prods. v. Medusa Corp., 157 Ga. App. 97 (5) ( 276 SE2d 147 ) (1981).

1977E.g., Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386 (1958); Gavieres v. United States, 220 U. S. 338 , supra; Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109, 118 ( 17 SE2d 573 ) (1941).

1977E.g., Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386 (1958); Gavieres v. United States, 220 U. S. 338 , supra; Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109, 118 ( 17 SE2d 573 ) (1941).

1976Co., 9 Ga. App. 628, 632 ( 71 SE 1076 ) (decided under laws relating to contribution which no longer obtain) stating a time-honored rule: "But there may be cases in which a person who has suffered loss or damage may have the *462 right to sue two persons as if they were joint wrong-doers, without their being, as among themselves, joint wrong-doers.

1976Co., 9 Ga. App. 628, 632 ( 71 SE 1076 ) (decided under laws relating to contribution which no longer obtain) stating a time-honored rule: "But there may be cases in which a person who has suffered loss or damage may have the right to sue two persons as if they were joint wrong-doers, without their being, as among themselves, joint wrong-doers.

1976It was held, in relation to the Civil Court of Fulton County (which, incidentally, does not fall under the State Courts Act, Austin v. Aldredge, 227 Ga. 119 ( 179 SE2d 66 )) as follows: "Waiver may be made of the right of trial by jury, and where a party has the right to demand a jury trial and neglects to do so he will be held to have waived the right. [Cits].

1976It was held, in relation to the Civil Court of Fulton County (which, incidentally, does not fall under the State Courts Act, Austin v. Aldredge, 227 Ga. 119 ( 179 SE2d 66 )) as follows: "Waiver may be made of the right of trial by jury, and where a party has the right to demand a jury trial and neglects to do so he will be held to have waived the right. [Cits].

1969Co., 79 Ga. 213 (4) ( 7 SE 265 ); Rahn v. Hamilton, 144 Ga. 644 (3) ( 87 SE 1061 )) or the alleged errors do not bear upon the crucial issue and would not serve to change the result.

1969Co., 79 Ga. 213 (4) ( 7 SE 265 ); Rahn v. Hamilton, 144 Ga. 644 (3) ( 87 SE 1061 )) or the alleged errors do not bear upon the crucial issue and would not serve to change the result.

1969Co., 79 Ga. 213 (4) ( 7 SE 265 ); Rahn v. Hamilton, 144 Ga. 644 (3) ( 87 SE 1061 )) or the alleged errors do not bear upon the crucial issue and would not serve to change the result.

1969Co., 79 Ga. 213 (4) ( 7 SE 265 ); Rahn v. Hamilton, 144 Ga. 644 (3) ( 87 SE 1061 )) or the alleged errors do not bear upon the crucial issue and would not serve to change the result.

1963The time honored rule of practice is observed: "An exception to an excerpt from a charge because of incompleteness of statement of a particular legal proposition is not good when the incompleteness is supplied in appropriate context by the general charge." Spence v. Morrow, 128 Ga. 722 (2) ( 58 SE 356 ).

1963The time honored rule of practice is observed: "An exception to an excerpt from a charge because of incompleteness of statement of a particular legal proposition is not good when the incompleteness is supplied in appropriate context by the general charge." Spence v. Morrow, 128 Ga. 722 (2) ( 58 SE 356 ).

1963"Where an excerpt from a charge isolated from its context appears to be confusing, but, when construed with the remainder of the charge, is plain and explicit, a ground of a motion for new trial that segregates the excerpt from the whole charge and attacks it as misleading or confusing is without merit." Glover v. Maddox, 98 Ga. App. 548 (7) ( 106 SE2d 288 ).

1963"Where an excerpt from a charge isolated from its context appears to be confusing, but, when construed with the remainder of the charge, is plain and explicit, a ground of a motion for new trial that segregates the excerpt from the whole charge and attacks it as misleading or confusing is without merit." Glover v. Maddox, 98 Ga. App. 548 (7) ( 106 SE2d 288 ).

1954One case notable among these is that of Crittenden v. Southern Home Building & Loan Assn., 111 Ga. 266 (5), 272 ( 36 S. E. 643 ).

1954One case notable among these is that of Crittenden v. Southern Home Building & Loan Assn., 111 Ga. 266 (5), 272 ( 36 S. E. 643 ).

1934In the Kearce case the Supreme Court applied the following time-honored rule laid down in Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106 : “In a case of a felony, where the only witness implicating the prisoners in the crime was himself avowedly guilty, the corroborating circumstances necessary to dispense with another witness must be such as go to connect the prisoner with the offense, and that it is not sufficient that the witness is corroborated as to the time, place and circumstances of the transaction, if there be nothing to show any connection of the prisoners therewith, except the statement of the accom

1934“Slight evidence that the crime was committed by the defendant will corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and warrant a conviction.” Brown v. State, 18 Ga. App. 288 ( 89 S. E. 342 ), citing Roberts v. State, 55 Ga. 220 (3).

1934“Slight evidence that the crime was committed by the defendant will corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and warrant a conviction.” Brown v. State, 18 Ga. App. 288 ( 89 S. E. 342 ), citing Roberts v. State, 55 Ga. 220 (3).

1934“Slight evidence that the crime was committed by the defendant will corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and warrant a conviction.” Brown v. State, 18 Ga. App. 288 ( 89 S. E. 342 ), citing Roberts v. State, 55 Ga. 220 (3).