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.
49 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1900–1973 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hardwick v. Georgia Power Co.green2 sentences1964Co., 107 Ga. 500 (4) ( 33 SE 644 ): “A general assignment of error upon a designated portion of the judge’s charge will be considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the particular language thus complained of states a correct abstract principle of law. (a) If it does, then the investigation here must end; for in the absence of a specific assignment of error, this court will not inquire whether the words excepted to are or are not adjusted to the issues and facts of the case, (b) If an instruction, excepted to in general terms, be erroneous because it is not a correct or accurate 1964Co., 107 Ga. 500 (4) ( 33 SE 644 ): “A general assignment of error upon a designated portion of the judge’s charge will be considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the particular language thus complained of states a correct abstract principle of law. (a) If it does, then the investigation here must end; for in the absence of a specific assignment of error, this court will not inquire whether the words excepted to are or are not adjusted to the issues and facts of the case, (b) If an instruction, excepted to in general terms, be erroneous because it is not a correct or accurate | 2 | 2 |
King v. Sharpegreen2 sentences1965“When a portion of a charge, which is complained of generally, contains several distinct propositions and one or more of the same are correct in the abstract, then the general assignment of error is not good and will not be further *556 considered, because it in effect improperly alleges that all of such portion is erroneous and does not show to which of the propositions, the correct or the erroneous, it is intended to take exception.” Burden v. Gates, 190 Ga. 300 (2) ( 9 SE2d 245 ); King v. Sharpe, 96 Ga. App. 71, 83 ( 99 SE2d 283 ). 1965“When a portion of a charge, which is complained of generally, contains several distinct propositions and one or more of the same are correct in the abstract, then the general assignment of error is not good and will not be further *556 considered, because it in effect improperly alleges that all of such portion is erroneous and does not show to which of the propositions, the correct or the erroneous, it is intended to take exception.” Burden v. Gates, 190 Ga. 300 (2) ( 9 SE2d 245 ); King v. Sharpe, 96 Ga. App. 71, 83 ( 99 SE2d 283 ). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Slussergreen2 sentences1963See Williams v. Slusser, 104 Ga. App. 412 ( 121 SE2d 796 ). 1963See Williams v. Slusser, 104 Ga. App. 412 ( 121 SE2d 796 ). | 1 | 1 |
Greene v. Orrgreen2 sentences1961Cain v. Tuten, 82 Ga. App. 102, 106 ( 60 S. E. 2d 485 ); Green v. Orr, 75 Ga. App. 673, 674 ( 44 S. E. 2d 273 ). 1961Cain v. Tuten, 82 Ga. App. 102, 106 ( 60 S. E. 2d 485 ); Green v. Orr, 75 Ga. App. 673, 674 ( 44 S. E. 2d 273 ). | 1 | 1 |
Cain v. Tutengreen2 sentences1961Cain v. Tuten, 82 Ga. App. 102, 106 ( 60 S. E. 2d 485 ); Green v. Orr, 75 Ga. App. 673, 674 ( 44 S. E. 2d 273 ). 1961Cain v. Tuten, 82 Ga. App. 102, 106 ( 60 S. E. 2d 485 ); Green v. Orr, 75 Ga. App. 673, 674 ( 44 S. E. 2d 273 ). | 1 | 1 |
Elliott v. Georgia Power Co.green2 sentences1960Elliott v. Georgia Power Co., 58 Ga. App. 151, 160 ( 197 S. E. 914 ). 1960Elliott v. Georgia Power Co., 58 Ga. App. 151, 160 ( 197 S. E. 914 ). | 1 | 1 |
City of Atlanta v. Carrollgreen2 sentences1959See City of Atlanta v. Carroll, 194 Ga. 172 (3) ( 21 S. E. 2d 86 ); Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460 ( 99 S. E. 2d 905 ). 1959See City of Atlanta v. Carroll, 194 Ga. 172 (3) ( 21 S. E. 2d 86 ); Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460 ( 99 S. E. 2d 905 ). | 1 | 1 |
Birdford Supply Co. v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences1949As was said in Birdford Supply Co. v. Edwards, 16 Ga. App. 518, 521 ( 85 S. E. 687 ): “Under this general assignment of error, no error committed by the court, and no question other than as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, could be considered, and the only other errors that might be considered were such as were specifically assigned.” Where there is any evidence to sustain- the trial court’s judgment the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court on certiorari. 1949As was said in Birdford Supply Co. v. Edwards, 16 Ga. App. 518, 521 ( 85 S. E. 687 ): “Under this general assignment of error, no error committed by the court, and no question other than as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, could be considered, and the only other errors that might be considered were such as were specifically assigned.” Where there is any evidence to sustain- the trial court’s judgment the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court on certiorari. | 1 | 1 |
| Burson v. Shieldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Prudential Insurance v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Reynolds v. Tifton Guano Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Visualizit Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hicks v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cusic v. Holland Furnace Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Holcomb, Croft & Co. v. Finchgreen2 sentences1923But see Holcomb v. Finch, 25 Ga. App. 261 (2) ( 103 S. E. 38 ), where it was held that such a general assignment of error in a certiorari will not suffice, where it does not appear “what grounds of error were urged in the oral motion for new trial.” See also L. & N. R. 1923But see Holcomb v. Finch, 25 Ga. App. 261 (2) ( 103 S. E. 38 ), where it was held that such a general assignment of error in a certiorari will not suffice, where it does not appear “what grounds of error were urged in the oral motion for new trial.” See also L. & N. R. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Southern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1964Co., 107 Ga. 500 (4) ( 33 SE 644 ): “A general assignment of error upon a designated portion of the judge’s charge will be considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the particular language thus complained of states a correct abstract principle of law. (a) If it does, then the investigation here must end; for in the absence of a specific assignment of error, this court will not inquire whether the words excepted to are or are not adjusted to the issues and facts of the case, (b) If an instruction, excepted to in general terms, be erroneous because it is not a correct or accurate 1964Co., 107 Ga. 500 (4) ( 33 SE 644 ): “A general assignment of error upon a designated portion of the judge’s charge will be considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the particular language thus complained of states a correct abstract principle of law. (a) If it does, then the investigation here must end; for in the absence of a specific assignment of error, this court will not inquire whether the words excepted to are or are not adjusted to the issues and facts of the case, (b) If an instruction, excepted to in general terms, be erroneous because it is not a correct or accurate | 8 | 1900–1973 |
Blue v. Fidelity Deposit Co.
neutral
2 sentences1925While it is true, with regard to writs of error, that “a general assignment of error, exceeding to a judgment overruling and denying a motion for a new trial, is sufficiently specific to bring under review all the grounds of error properly made in the motion,” without repeating such grounds in the bill of exceptions where they appear in due form in the record (Butler v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 , 68 S. E. 331 ; Rigell v. Sirmans, 123 Ga. 455 , 51 S. E. 381 ; Crouch v. Spooner, 8 Ga. App. 626 , 69 S. E. 1129 ), and that a similar rule is applicable to petitions for certiorari from judgments on moti 1925While it is true, with regard to writs of error, that “a general assignment of error, exceeding to a judgment overruling and denying a motion for a new trial, is sufficiently specific to bring under review all the grounds of error properly made in the motion,” without repeating such grounds in the bill of exceptions where they appear in due form in the record (Butler v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 , 68 S. E. 331 ; Rigell v. Sirmans, 123 Ga. 455 , 51 S. E. 381 ; Crouch v. Spooner, 8 Ga. App. 626 , 69 S. E. 1129 ), and that a similar rule is applicable to petitions for certiorari from judgments on moti | 3 | 1925–1953 |
Burden v. Gates
green
2 sentences1966In that status “the general assignment of error is not good and will not be further considered, because it in effect alleges that all of such portion is erroneous and does not show to which of the propositions, the correct or the erroneous, it is intended to take exception.” Burden v. Gates, 190 Ga. 300 (2) ( 9 SE2d 245 ); Liberty Nat. 1966In that status “the general assignment of error is not good and will not be further considered, because it in effect alleges that all of such portion is erroneous and does not show to which of the propositions, the correct or the erroneous, it is intended to take exception.” Burden v. Gates, 190 Ga. 300 (2) ( 9 SE2d 245 ); Liberty Nat. | 2 | 1965–1966 |
Frank & Co. v. Adams
neutral
2 sentences1923It was error to admit, over the objection of the defendant that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and prejudicial, the testimony of the plaintiff’s salesman: “ I sold two others [meaning two other concerns in Atlanta] at the same time and at the same price, and they accepted them and paid for them.” 41. “ A general assignment of error upon an excerpt from the judge’s instructions brings under review only the abstract correctness of the legal principle therein contained, and not its applicability to the facts of the ease.” Frank & Co. v. Adams, 144 Ga. 270 (2) ( 87 S. E. 3 ); Central of Ga. Ry. 1923It was error to admit, over the objection of the defendant that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and prejudicial, the testimony of the plaintiff’s salesman: “ I sold two others [meaning two other concerns in Atlanta] at the same time and at the same price, and they accepted them and paid for them.” 41. “ A general assignment of error upon an excerpt from the judge’s instructions brings under review only the abstract correctness of the legal principle therein contained, and not its applicability to the facts of the ease.” Frank & Co. v. Adams, 144 Ga. 270 (2) ( 87 S. E. 3 ); Central of Ga. Ry. | 2 | 1923–1940 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1914The ruling in Smith v. State, 125 Ga. 300 ( 54 S. E. 124 ), to the effect that a general assignment of error that the court erred in not charging the law of voluntary manslaughter is insufficient, will not be extended. 1914The ruling in Smith v. State, 125 Ga. 300 ( 54 S. E. 124 ), to the effect that a general assignment of error that the court erred in not charging the law of voluntary manslaughter is insufficient, will not be extended. | 2 | 1914–1936 |
Reese v. Miller
green
2 sentences1934Reese v. Miller, 33 Ga. App. 442 ( 126 S. E. 904 ) ; Echols v. Moses, 46 Ga. App. 704 ( 169 S. E. 57 ). 1933Holcomb v. Finch, 25 Ga. App. 261 (2) ( 103 S. E. 38 ) ; Reese v. Miller, 33 Ga. App. 442 (2) ( 126 S. E. 904 ). 4. | 2 | 1933–1934 |
Davis v. Smiley
green
2 sentences1934Reese v. Miller, 33 Ga. App. 442 ( 126 S. E. 904 ) ; Echols v. Moses, 46 Ga. App. 704 ( 169 S. E. 57 ). 1933Holcomb v. Finch, 25 Ga. App. 261 (2) ( 103 S. E. 38 ) ; Reese v. Miller, 33 Ga. App. 442 (2) ( 126 S. E. 904 ). 4. | 2 | 1933–1934 |
Crouch & Son v. Spooner
neutral
2 sentences1930The petition in this case sets out literally the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and does thus “fully and distinctly sét forth the errors complained of.” The first headnote in Crouch v. Spooner, 8 Ga. App. 626 ( 69 S. E. 1129 ), is as follows: “Where the error alleged is in the granting or denying of a new trial, one assignment of error is sufficient to reach all the grounds of the motion on which the grant or refusal was based.” See Butler v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 ( 68 S. E. 331 ). 1925While it is true, with regard to writs of error, that “a general assignment of error, exceeding to a judgment overruling and denying a motion for a new trial, is sufficiently specific to bring under review all the grounds of error properly made in the motion,” without repeating such grounds in the bill of exceptions where they appear in due form in the record (Butler v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 , 68 S. E. 331 ; Rigell v. Sirmans, 123 Ga. 455 , 51 S. E. 381 ; Crouch v. Spooner, 8 Ga. App. 626 , 69 S. E. 1129 ), and that a similar rule is applicable to petitions for certiorari from judgments on moti | 2 | 1925–1930 |
Connor v. Cochran
neutral
2 sentences1930The petition in this case sets out literally the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and does thus “fully and distinctly sét forth the errors complained of.” The first headnote in Crouch v. Spooner, 8 Ga. App. 626 ( 69 S. E. 1129 ), is as follows: “Where the error alleged is in the granting or denying of a new trial, one assignment of error is sufficient to reach all the grounds of the motion on which the grant or refusal was based.” See Butler v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 ( 68 S. E. 331 ). 1925While it is true, with regard to writs of error, that “a general assignment of error, exceeding to a judgment overruling and denying a motion for a new trial, is sufficiently specific to bring under review all the grounds of error properly made in the motion,” without repeating such grounds in the bill of exceptions where they appear in due form in the record (Butler v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 , 68 S. E. 331 ; Rigell v. Sirmans, 123 Ga. 455 , 51 S. E. 381 ; Crouch v. Spooner, 8 Ga. App. 626 , 69 S. E. 1129 ), and that a similar rule is applicable to petitions for certiorari from judgments on moti | 2 | 1925–1930 |
Athens Manufacturing Co. v. Rucker
green
2 sentences1925Co. v. Rucker, 80 Ga. 291 (5), 296 ( 4 S. E. 885 ). 2. 1925Co. v. Rucker, 80 Ga. 291 (5), 296 ( 4 S. E. 885 ). 2. | 2 | 1900–1925 |
Kelly v. Strouse & Bros.
green
2 sentences1921Roberts v. Keeler, 111 Ga. 181 (6), 184 ( 30 S. E. 617 ); Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872 (6), 888, 896 ( 43 S. E. 280 ). 1921Roberts v. Keeler, 111 Ga. 181 (6), 184 ( 30 S. E. 617 ); Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872 (6), 888, 896 ( 43 S. E. 280 ). | 2 | 1908–1921 |
Callaway & Truitt v. Southern Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1920This ease does not belong to that class of cases in which a general assignment of error may be made to the judgment, as in the case of Kirkland v. Atlantic & Birmingham Ry Co., 126 Ga. 246 ( 55 S. E. 23 ). 1909Co., 126 Ga. 246 ( 55 S. E. 23 ), in which it was held that a general assignment would be sufficient if it were an interlocutory injunction case whioh involved the exercise of the judge’s discretion. | 2 | 1909–1920 |
Kirkland v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1920This ease does not belong to that class of cases in which a general assignment of error may be made to the judgment, as in the case of Kirkland v. Atlantic & Birmingham Ry Co., 126 Ga. 246 ( 55 S. E. 23 ). 1909Co., 126 Ga. 246 ( 55 S. E. 23 ), in which it was held that a general assignment would be sufficient if it were an interlocutory injunction case whioh involved the exercise of the judge’s discretion. | 2 | 1909–1920 |
Fuller v. Self
green
1 sentence1964Co., 107 Ga. 500 (4) ( 33 SE 644 ): “A general assignment of error upon a designated portion of the judge’s charge will be considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the particular language thus complained of states a correct abstract principle of law. (a) If it does, then the investigation here must end; for in the absence of a specific assignment of error, this court will not inquire whether the words excepted to are or are not adjusted to the issues and facts of the case, (b) If an instruction, excepted to in general terms, be erroneous because it is not a correct or accurate | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Huxford v. Southern Pine Co.
green
2 sentences1963Huxford v. Southern Pine Co. of Ga., 124 Ga. 181 (1) ( 52 SE 439 ). (b) “Where a bill of exceptions which can be identified as excepting to a specific judgment shall be served upon counsel of record in the case, such service shall be held to- bind all parties whom said counsel represented in the trial court.” Code § 6-912. 1963Huxford v. Southern Pine Co. of Ga., 124 Ga. 181 (1) ( 52 SE 439 ). (b) “Where a bill of exceptions which can be identified as excepting to a specific judgment shall be served upon counsel of record in the case, such service shall be held to- bind all parties whom said counsel represented in the trial court.” Code § 6-912. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Garland v. State of Georgia
green
2 sentences1962Garland v. State of Georgia, 101 Ga. App. 395 (1) ( 114 SE2d 176 ). 1962Garland v. State of Georgia, 101 Ga. App. 395 (1) ( 114 SE2d 176 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Baker v. Metallizing Company of America
neutral
2 sentences1961Baker v. Metallizing Co. of America, 103 Ga. App. 174 (1) ( 118 SE2d 843 ), and cases there cited. 1961Baker v. Metallizing Co. of America, 103 Ga. App. 174 (1) ( 118 SE2d 843 ), and cases there cited. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Miller v. Coleman
green
2 sentences1959See City of Atlanta v. Carroll, 194 Ga. 172 (3) ( 21 S. E. 2d 86 ); Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460 ( 99 S. E. 2d 905 ). 1959See City of Atlanta v. Carroll, 194 Ga. 172 (3) ( 21 S. E. 2d 86 ); Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460 ( 99 S. E. 2d 905 ). | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Evans v. Evans
neutral
2 sentences1952Lanier v. Gay, 197 Ga. 187 ( 28 S. E. 2d, 579 ), and cases cited; City of Douglas v. Atlantic Coast Line R. 1952Lanier v. Gay, 197 Ga. 187 ( 28 S. E. 2d, 579 ), and cases cited; City of Douglas v. Atlantic Coast Line R. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Evans v. Kinard
neutral
2 sentences1949Evans v. Kinard, 60 Ga. App. 138 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 146 ). 1949Evans v. Kinard, 60 Ga. App. 138 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 146 ). | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Pitts v. State
green
2 sentences1945Eor a similar case on this question, which contains many citations, see the majority opinion in Pitts v. State, 197 Ga. 317 ( 28 S. E. 2d, 864 ). 1945Eor a similar case on this question, which contains many citations, see the majority opinion in Pitts v. State, 197 Ga. 317 ( 28 S. E. 2d, 864 ). | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Jefferson v. State neutral | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| King v. Sears green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Smith v. Walker green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Bass v. Wolff & Hopp green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Union Lumber Co. v. Allen neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Hilliard v. Thornton green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Lewis v. Trimble green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Harvey v. Mayor of Carrollton green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Dimond v. Shackelford neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. green | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Battle v. Hambrick green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Burney v. State green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Hamlin v. Johns neutral | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Beall v. Mineral Tone Co. green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Sheftall v. Johnson neutral | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Bosworth v. Nelson green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Mobley v. Ellis green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Manning v. Gettys neutral | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Teague v. State neutral | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.