Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co.
195 S.E. 156, 185 Ga. 379, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 423
This text of 195 S.E. 156 (Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co., 195 S.E. 156, 185 Ga. 379, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 423 (Ga. 1938).
Opinion
This ease is controlled, by the ruling in Rose Theatre Inc. v. Lilly, 185 Ga. 53 (193 S. E. 866), wherein it was held that it was not error to overrule a demurrer to the petition brought by the solicitor-general, containing allegations very similar to those made in this petition, and which are substantially set forth in the accompanying statement of facts. Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Evans Theatre Corporation v. Slaton
180 S.E.2d 712 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Forehand v. Moody
36 S.E.2d 321 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Waller v. Lanier
30 S.E.2d 925 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co.
196 S.E. 404 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
195 S.E. 156, 185 Ga. 379, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-lam-amusement-co-ga-1938.