State v. . Rodgers

8 S.E.2d 927, 217 N.C. 622, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 307
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 22, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 S.E.2d 927 (State v. . Rodgers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. . Rodgers, 8 S.E.2d 927, 217 N.C. 622, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 307 (N.C. 1940).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no appeal lies to this Court from a discretionary determination of an application for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must be allowed on authority of S. v. Ferrell, 206 N. C., 738, 175 S. E., 91, and Jarrett v. Ins. Co., 208 N. C., 343.

The case is not like Crane v. Carswell, 204 N. C., 571, 169 S. E., 160, where the “newly discovered evidence,” as this phrase is defined in the law, was insufficient to invoke a discretionary ruling in favor of the movant.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

State v. Williams
94 S.E.2d 374 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
State v. Bryant
72 S.E.2d 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
State v. Suddreth
55 S.E.2d 690 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
State v. . Thomas
40 S.E.2d 412 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 S.E.2d 927, 217 N.C. 622, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodgers-nc-1940.