Shaw v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shaw v. State

95 S.E. 477, 22 Ga. App. 134, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 195

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1918

Docket9530

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 477 (Shaw 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

Shaw v. State, 95 S.E. 477, 22 Ga. App. 134, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 195 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The entire brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error- is in the following sentence: “The recitals of fact and statement of error in the motion and amended motion for a new trial clearly state the issues in the case and same is respectfully submitted to the court.” This is not an argument. It has been repeatedly held by this court and the Supreme Court of the State that assignments of error not argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned.

2. The evidence demanded the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Barwell, J., eoneur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The entire brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error- is in the following sentence: “The recitals of fact and statement of error in the motion and amended motion for a new trial clearly state the issues in the case and same is respectfully submitted to the court.” This is not an argument. It has been repeatedly held by this court and the Supreme Court of the State that assignments of error not argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned.

2. The evidence demanded the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Barwell, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 477, 22 Ga. App. 134, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-state-gactapp-1918.