Belluso v. Hall
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McMURRAY; BANKE, C.J., and BENHAM |
| Citation | Belluso v. Hall, 335 S.E.2d 884, 176 Ga.App. 281 (Ga. App. 1985) |
| Decision Date | 12 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 70409,70409 |
| Parties | BELLUSO et al. v. HALL. |
Russell D. Waldon, Atlanta, for appellants.
Lloyd E. N. Hall, Atlanta, pro se.
Appellee, a practicing attorney, brought suit against appellants alleging they failed to pay his fees. Following a jury trial during which appellants represented themselves, a verdict was returned in favor of appellee. Judgment was entered upon the verdict and now through counsel this appeal was taken. Held:
Appellants' enumerations of error only address evidentiary matters. Assuming, arguendo, the trial court erred in admitting the evidence in question, such errors were waived by appellants' failure to interpose timely objections. Page v. State, 167 Ga.App. 297, 298(1), 306 S.E.2d 381.
Judgment affirmed.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- McCranie v. Langdale Ford Co.
-
Morris v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
...be required to preserve error. This court will not consider an objection which was not raised in the trial court. Belluso v. Hall, 176 Ga.App. 281, 335 S.E.2d 884 (1985). 3. Appellant asserts as error the trial court's "contradictory rulings" on the admissibility of evidence of other teleph......