Hill v. Cockrell
This text of 232 S.E.2d 384 (Hill v. Cockrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
"[W]here the trial judge, sitting as the trior of the facts, hears the evidence, his findings based upon conflicting evidence is analogous to the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it.” West v. West, 228 Ga. 397, 398 (185 SE2d 763) (1971);Lester Colodny Const. Co. v. Allen, 129 Ga. App. 545 (199 SE2d 917) (1973). Here there was ample legal evidence to support the findings of fact, and there is no error in the trial judge’s conclusions of law. 1
Judgment affirmed.
For prior appearance see Hill v. Cockrell, 139 Ga. App. 616 (229 SE2d 105) (1976).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
232 S.E.2d 384, 141 Ga. App. 39, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-cockrell-gactapp-1977.