King v. State, 246 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
King v. State, 246 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: CHRISTOPHER H. COWART D/B/A COWART TREE EXPERTS v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (gactapp, 2022-01-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CHRISTOPHER H. COWART D/B/A COWART TREE EXPERTS v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
While the sufficiency of service of an application for contempt potentially may implicate issues concerning personal jurisdiction, see generally Dennis v. Dennis, 302 Ga. App. 791, 794 (2) ( 692 SE2d 47 ) (2010); Chavarria v. Jackson, 194 Ga. App. 414, 414-415 ( 390 SE2d 613 ) (1990); Berger v. North American Co., 146 Ga. App. 475, 476-477 (3) ( 246 SE2d 716 ) (1978), no such question is before us in this proceeding.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwindler v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Berger v. North American Co., 146 Ga. App. 475, 477 (3) ( 246 SE2d 716 ) (1978); see Lake v. Hamilton Bank of *32 Dalton, 148 Ga. App. 348, 349 (2) ( 251 SE2d 177 ) (1978); Crocker v. Crocker, 132 Ga. App. 587, 591 (3) ( 208 SE2d 602 ) (1974). 3.
discussed Cited "see" Georgia Pain and Wellness Center, LLC v. Melissa Hatchett
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Due Process Clause requires every method of service to provide “‘notice reasonably calculated, under all 7 the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’”5 Similarly, the Supreme Court of Georgia has explained that “whether a proceeding is in rem or in personam, due process requires that a chosen method of service be reasonably certain to give actual notice of the pendency of a proceeding to those parties whose liberty or property inter…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Roberts v. Roberts
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Moody v. Moody, 238 Ga. 257 ( 232 SE2d 842 ) (1977), explained in Berger v. North American Co., 146 Ga. App. 475, 476 (1) ( 246 SE2d 716 ) (1978).
KING
v.
State
55955.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jun 29, 1978.
246 S.E.2d 486
Deen.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Deen, Presiding Judge.

In this pro se appeal, appellant failed to file an enumeration of errors and a brief within the time limited by the rules of this court, and failed to conform to an order of the court specifically requiring him to respond within five days of the receipt of the order. We have, nevertheless, examined the record in the case and find that the trial court committed no error. The evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of burglary.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Banke, JJ., concur.