Hankerson v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hankerson v. State

135 S.E.2d 274, 219 Ga. 687, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 372

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 6, 1964

Docket22327

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E.2d 274 (Hankerson v. State) 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

Hankerson v. State, 135 S.E.2d 274, 219 Ga. 687, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 372 (Ga. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

1. The decision in Clark v. State, ante, controls adversely to this plaintiff in error, the exception to the judgment sustaining the constitutionality of an Act which the legislature passed in 1960 (Ga. L. 1960, p. 142; Code Ann. § 26-3005), as against the demurrer which contends that such Act offends the Fourteenth Amendment. (Code § 1-815).

2. There is no brief of evidence in this record, and since the merits of the general grounds of the motion for new trial can be determined only from a consideration of the evidence, it follows that the judgment overruling them must be affirmed. Middleton v. State, ante, and the cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Argued January 14, 1964 Decided February 6, 1964 Rehearing denied February 11, 1964. B. Clarence Mayfield, E. H. Gadsden, for plaintiff in error. Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, R. E. Barker, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Candler, Justice.

1. The decision in Clark v. State, ante, controls adversely to this plaintiff in error, the exception to the judgment sustaining the constitutionality of an Act which the legislature passed in 1960 (Ga. L. 1960, p. 142; Code Ann. § 26-3005), as against the demurrer which contends that such Act offends the Fourteenth Amendment. (Code § 1-815).

2. There is no brief of evidence in this record, and since the merits of the general grounds of the motion for new trial can be determined only from a consideration of the evidence, it follows that the judgment overruling them must be affirmed. Middleton v. State, ante, and the cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Argued January 14, 1964 Decided February 6, 1964 Rehearing denied February 11, 1964. B. Clarence Mayfield, E. H. Gadsden, for plaintiff in error. Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, R. E. Barker, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E.2d 274, 219 Ga. 687, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hankerson-v-state-ga-1964.