Tipton v. State, 68 S.E. 614 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910). · Go Syfert
Search
Tipton v. State, 68 S.E. 614 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Austin Lee Corp. v. Cascades Motel, Inc. (gactapp, 1971-04-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1918 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1918 1972 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Austin Lee Corp. v. Cascades Motel, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clary v. State, 8 Ga. App. 92 (2) ( 68 SE 615 ); Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga. App. 668, 681 ( 16 SE2d 214 ); Hinesley v. Anderson, 75 Ga. App. 394, 398 ( 43 SE2d 736 ), and citations.’ Carroll v. Hayes, 98 Ga. App. 450, 452 ( 105 SE2d 755 ).” Rouse v. Fussell, 106 Ga. App. 259, 262 ( 126 SE2d 830 ).
discussed Cited "see" American Fire & Casualty Company v. Grizzle
Ga. Ct. App. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clary v. State, 8 Ga. App. 92 (2) ( 68 SE 615 ); Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga. App. 668, 681 ( 16 SE2d 214 ); Hinesley v. Anderson, 75 Ga. App. 394, 398 ( 43 SE2d 736 ), and citations.” Carroll v. Hayes, 98 Ga. App. 450, 452 ( 105 SE2d 755 ).
discussed Cited "see" Rouse v. Fussell
Ga. Ct. App. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clary v. State, 8 Ga. App. 92 (2) ( 68 SE 615 ); Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga. App. 668, 681 ( 16 SE2d 214 ); Hinesley v. Anderson, 75 Ga. App. 394, 398 ( 43 SE2d 736 ), and citations.” Carroll v. Hayes, 98 Ga. App. 450, 452 ( 105 SE2d 755 ).
cited Cited "see" Carroll v. Hayes
Ga. Ct. App. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clary v. State, 8 Ga. App. 92 (2) ( 68 S. E. 615 ); Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga. App. 668, 681 ( 16 S. E. 2d 214 ); Hinesley v. Anderson, 75 Ga. App. 394, 398 ( 43 S. E. 2d 736 ), and citations.
cited Cited "see" McDowell v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1948 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clary v. State, 8 Ga. App. 92 (2) ( 68 S. E. 615 ).
Tipton
v.
State
2674.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jul 19, 1910.
68 S.E. 614
J. E. Rosser, F. W. Copeland, Earl Jaclcson, W. M. Henry, for plaintiff in error. John W. Bale, solicitor-general, contra.
Russell.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Russell, J.

1. Tlie assignments of error as to the court’s instructions upon the subject of assault'with intent to murder are immaterial, because they were not harmful to the defendant, as is apparent from the fact that the jury found the defendant guilty merely of shooting at another.

2. That the judge casually referred to involuntary manslaughter, as one of the species included within tlie general term “manslaughter,” affords no ground for reversal, in view of the fact that no reference whatever was made to the subject of involuntary manslaughter, in directing the attention of the jury to the applicability of the law to the facts, as they might find them.

3. The defendant’s defense of justification was fairly presented to the jury.

4. While some minor errors appear in the record, none of them could have, prejudieed’the rights of the defendant.1 Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant had a fair and legal trial, and no reason appears why tlie case should again be tried. Judgment affirmed.