State v. . Rodgers

8 S.E.2d 927, 217 N.C. 622, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 307
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 22, 1940·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

8 S.E.2d 927 (State v. . Rodgers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)