Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Minyard v. State

Minyard v. State

89 S.E. 379, 18 Ga. App. 312, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 324
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 27, 1916
Docket7466
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 379 (Minyard v. State) 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.

Bluebook
Minyard v. State, 89 S.E. 379, 18 Ga. App. 312, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Wade, O. J.

Extraordinary motions for new trials are not favored, and should be denied where based upon alleged newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative and impeaching in character. Due diligence on the part of the movhnt must also appear. Under the facts disclosed by the record in this case, we can not say that the trial judge abused the broad discretion vested in him by law in refusing this motion. Judgment affirmed.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Americus— Judge Harper. April 8, 1916. W. W. Dykes, L. J. Blalock, for plaintiff in error. J. B. Williams, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Related

Taylor v. State
77 Ga. App. 532 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 S.E. 379, 18 Ga. App. 312, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minyard-v-state-gactapp-1916.