Law v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Law v. Smith

174 S.E.2d 893, 226 Ga. 298, 1970 Ga. LEXIS 516

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1970

Docket25698

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 174 S.E.2d 893 (Law v. Smith) 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

Law v. Smith, 174 S.E.2d 893, 226 Ga. 298, 1970 Ga. LEXIS 516 (Ga. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

Hawes, Justice.

Paragraph 3 of Rule 16 of the rules of this court, as amended (221 Ga. 884), relating to what the brief of an appellant shall contain, provides that' “Part 1 shall contain a statement of each error enumerated. It shall also contain succinct and accurate statements of the issues of law as made by' the errors enumerated and shall refer to the parts of the record and transcript of the evidence relied upon in support thereof. Any enumeration of error riot thus dealt with will' be disregarded.”' Nowhere in. the brief of the appellant, either in Part 1 or Part 2 is there any reference to the part or parts of the record and transcript of the evidence relied upon by the appellant in support of the grounds of his enumeration of errors. Accordingly, upon the authority of Hicks v. Maple Valley Corp., 223 Ga. 577 (156 SE2d 904), none of the enumerated errors will be considered by this court and the appeal here from the overruling of the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. See Waters v. Arrendale, 223 Ga. 617 (157 SE2d 289); Wallis v. Maddox, 223 Ga. 626 (157 SE2d 456), and Benefield v. Benefield, 224 Ga. 208 (5) (160 SE2d 895).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hawes, Justice.

Paragraph 3 of Rule 16 of the rules of this court, as amended (221 Ga. 884), relating to what the brief of an appellant shall contain, provides that' “Part 1 shall contain a statement of each error enumerated. It shall also contain succinct and accurate statements of the issues of law as made by' the errors enumerated and shall refer to the parts of the record and transcript of the evidence relied upon in support thereof. Any enumeration of error riot thus dealt with will' be disregarded.”' Nowhere in. the brief of the appellant, either in Part 1 or Part 2 is there any reference to the part or parts of the record and transcript of the evidence relied upon by the appellant in support of the grounds of his enumeration of errors. Accordingly, upon the authority of Hicks v. Maple Valley Corp., 223 Ga. 577 (156 SE2d 904), none of the enumerated errors will be considered by this court and the appeal here from the overruling of the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. See Waters v. Arrendale, 223 Ga. 617 (157 SE2d 289); Wallis v. Maddox, 223 Ga. 626 (157 SE2d 456), and Benefield v. Benefield, 224 Ga. 208 (5) (160 SE2d 895).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E.2d 893, 226 Ga. 298, 1970 Ga. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/law-v-smith-ga-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack