Sassene v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sassene v. City of Atlanta

136 S.E. 109, 36 Ga. App. 208, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 871

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1926

Docket17679

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 109 (Sassene v. City of Atlanta) 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

Sassene v. City of Atlanta, 136 S.E. 109, 36 Ga. App. 208, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 871 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Cora Sassene, having been convicted in the recorder’s court of the City of Atlanta for a violation of a city ordinance, presented to the judge of the superior court a petition for writ of certiorari. The judge properly refused to sanction the writ, for the reason that the petition did not comply with the statutory requirements of law in the matter of verification and giving bond or filing a pauper’s affidavit. We say that, in addition to the reasons given by the judge for not sanctioning the petition for certiorari, the petition did not set out a single meritorious reason why the conviction of petitioner in the recorder’s court should be set aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

Cora Sassene, having been convicted in the recorder’s court of the City of Atlanta for a violation of a city ordinance, presented to the judge of the superior court a petition for writ of certiorari. The judge properly refused to sanction the writ, for the reason that the petition did not comply with the statutory requirements of law in the matter of verification and giving bond or filing a pauper’s affidavit. We say that, in addition to the reasons given by the judge for not sanctioning the petition for certiorari, the petition did not set out a single meritorious reason why the conviction of petitioner in the recorder’s court should be set aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 109, 36 Ga. App. 208, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sassene-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack