Nadler v. Okarma

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nadler v. Okarma

150 S.E.2d 846, 114 Ga. App. 275, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 714

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 7, 1966

Docket42068

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 S.E.2d 846 (Nadler v. Okarma) 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

Nadler v. Okarma, 150 S.E.2d 846, 114 Ga. App. 275, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Franiojm, Judge.

The evidence adduced on the trial of this case was not taken down by a court reporter. Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant were unable to agree upon a brief of the evidence. The trial judge was requested to con[276]*276duct a hearing for the purpose of “settling the brief of evidence,” which request was granted, and at said hearing, the trial judge refused to approve the proposed brief of evidence, and thereupon denied the appellant’s motion for a new trial which was based upon the usual general grounds only. Under these facts, which are conceded by counsel for the appellant in their brief, appellant’s enumeration of errors 1 and 2 are without merit, and since all of the other alleged errors enumerated present no question which can be determined without a consideration of the evidence adduced upon the trial of the case, and there being no certified or approved transcript or brief of such evidence, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. At the time it was overruled the motion for a new trial was ripe for determination, but since there was no proper transcript or brief of the evidence the better practice would have been to dismiss it. Since the legal effect of the judgment denying the motion was the same as a dismissal, such judgment will be affirmed. See Cain v. State, 131 Ga. 770 (63 SE 289).

Argued June 6, 1966 Decided September 7, 1966. Parks & Eisenberg, David S. Eisenberg, for appellant. William H. Whaley, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Franiojm, Judge.

The evidence adduced on the trial of this case was not taken down by a court reporter. Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant were unable to agree upon a brief of the evidence. The trial judge was requested to con[276]*276duct a hearing for the purpose of “settling the brief of evidence,” which request was granted, and at said hearing, the trial judge refused to approve the proposed brief of evidence, and thereupon denied the appellant’s motion for a new trial which was based upon the usual general grounds only. Under these facts, which are conceded by counsel for the appellant in their brief, appellant’s enumeration of errors 1 and 2 are without merit, and since all of the other alleged errors enumerated present no question which can be determined without a consideration of the evidence adduced upon the trial of the case, and there being no certified or approved transcript or brief of such evidence, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. At the time it was overruled the motion for a new trial was ripe for determination, but since there was no proper transcript or brief of the evidence the better practice would have been to dismiss it. Since the legal effect of the judgment denying the motion was the same as a dismissal, such judgment will be affirmed. See Cain v. State, 131 Ga. 770 (63 SE 289).

Argued June 6, 1966 Decided September 7, 1966. Parks & Eisenberg, David S. Eisenberg, for appellant. William H. Whaley, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E.2d 846, 114 Ga. App. 275, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadler-v-okarma-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack