Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nolen v. Murray Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1989Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's denial of her motion for new trial on the general grounds. "`The jury verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and after verdict the evidence is to be construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict. [Cit.] And, if there is any evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury, an appellate court will not disturb it. [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Nolen v. Murray Indus., 165 Ga. App. 785, 786 (1) ( 302 SE2d 689 ) (1983). 1989Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's denial of her motion for new trial on the general grounds. "`The jury verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and after verdict the evidence is to be construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict. [Cit.] And, if there is any evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury, an appellate court will not disturb it. [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Nolen v. Murray Indus., 165 Ga. App. 785, 786 (1) ( 302 SE2d 689 ) (1983). | 3 | 3 |
Suber v. Fountaingreen2 sentences1983“We have reviewed the record and find the verdict was authorized by the evidence. [Cits.] The evidence presented questions for the jury which were resolved in favor of the [prevailing party]. [Cit.] The evidence did not demand a verdict [for the losing party] and the jury was authorized by the evidence to reach a finding [for the prevailing party]. [Cit.] The jury verdict had the approval of the trial judge, and after verdict the evidence is to be construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict. [Cit.] And, 1983“We have reviewed the record and find the verdict was authorized by the evidence. [Cits.] The evidence presented questions for the jury which were resolved in favor of the [prevailing party]. [Cit.] The evidence did not demand a verdict [for the losing party] and the jury was authorized by the evidence to reach a finding [for the prevailing party]. [Cit.] The jury verdict had the approval of the trial judge, and after verdict the evidence is to be construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict. [Cit.] And, | 1 | 3 |
Paine v. Nationsgreen2 sentences2007On appeal from judgment entered on a jury’s verdict, “the evidence is to be construed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Paine v. Nations, 283 Ga. App. 167, 167-168 ( 641 SE2d 180 ) (2006). 2007On appeal from judgment entered on a jury’s verdict, “the evidence is to be construed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Paine v. Nations, 283 Ga. App. 167, 167-168 ( 641 SE2d 180 ) (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Kent v. Petersgreen2 sentences1998Moreover, “the evidence is to be construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict.” (Punctuation omitted.) Kent v. Peters, 211 Ga. App. 698 *754 (1) ( 440 SE2d 87 ) (1994). 1998Moreover, “the evidence is to be construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of sustaining the verdict.” (Punctuation omitted.) Kent v. Peters, 211 Ga. App. 698 *754 (1) ( 440 SE2d 87 ) (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Houston v. Hughesgreen2 sentences1989See also Houston v. Hughes, 172 Ga. App. 638 ( 324 SE2d 206 ) (1984). 1989See also Houston v. Hughes, 172 Ga. App. 638 ( 324 SE2d 206 ) (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Mathis-Akins Concrete Block Co. v. Tuckergreen2 sentences1977On appeal, after verdict the evidence is construed in its light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of the verdict (Mathis-Akins Concrete Block Co. v. Tucker, 127 Ga. App. 699, 700 ( 194 SE2d 604 )), and if there is any evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury, this court will not disturb it. 1977On appeal, after verdict the evidence is construed in its light most favorable to the prevailing party and every presumption and inference is in favor of the verdict (Mathis-Akins Concrete Block Co. v. Tucker, 127 Ga. App. 699, 700 ( 194 SE2d 604 )), and if there is any evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury, this court will not disturb it. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boatright v. Rich's, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Boatright v. Rich’s, 121 Ga. App. 121 (1) ( 173 SE2d 232 ). 1979Boatright v. Rich’s, 121 Ga. App. 121 (1) ( 173 SE2d 232 ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Worn v. Sea-Cold Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences1977Worn v. Sea-Cold, Services, 135 Ga. App. 256 (2) ( 217 SE2d 425 ). 1977Worn v. Sea-Cold, Services, 135 Ga. App. 256 (2) ( 217 SE2d 425 ). | 1 | 1977–1977 |