Moody v. Gilbert
Decision Date | 10 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 17777,17777 |
Citation | 208 Ga. 784,69 S.E.2d 874 |
Parties | MOODY v. GILBERT. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Henry M. Hatcher, Jr., Herbert Johnson and R. R. Rhudy, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Where, as here, the judgment sought to be reviewed is one by the judge of a superior court fixing the custody of a minor child, and the record shows that the judge, before rendering the judgment complained of, referred the matter of custody to the juvenile court for investigation, report and recommendation, his judgment will be reversed when the record shows, as it does in this case, that it is based, in part at least, upon information obtained from such report.See, in this connection, Alford v. Alford, 190 Ga. 562, 9 S.E.2d 895;Kilgore v. Tiller, 194 Ga. 527, 22 S.E.2d 150;Everett v. Sharpe, 207 Ga. 502, 504, 63 S.E.2d 1;Sheppard v. Sheppard, 208 Ga. 422(3), 67 S.E.2d 131.Fundamental to our system of jurisprudence is the right of a party litigant to be confronted with those who testify against him; and respect for judgments and decrees will not survive its abrogation.
...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Kelley v. Kelley
...note 16, infra; Yearsley v. Yearsley, note 16, infra; Anderson v. Anderson, note 20, infra; Larson v. Larson, note 16, infra; Moody v. Gilbert, note 16, infra; Roberts v. Roberts, note 16, infra; Fewel v. Fewel, note 16, infra; Roach v. Roach, note 16, infra; Lyle v. Eddy, note 16, infra; K......
-
Camp v. Camp
...Ga. 527, 22 S.E.2d 150, Everett v. Sharpe, 207 Ga. 502, 63 S.E.2d 1, Sheppard v. Sheppard, 208 Ga. 422, 67 S.E.2d 131, and Moody v. Gilbert, 208 Ga. 784, 69 S.E.2d 874, made it crystal clear that the trial courts of the State could not consider reports of the Welfare Departments of the coun......
-
Tucker v. Tucker
...252 (1933); Smith v. Smith, 209 Wis. 605, 245 N.W. 644 (1932). Fewel v. Fewel, 23 Cal.2d 431, 144 P.2d 592 (1943); Moody v. Gilbert, 208 Ga. 784, 69 S.E.2d 874 (1952); Yearsley v. Yearsley, 94 Idaho 667, 496 P.2d 666 (1972). See 27B C.J.S., Divorce § 317(8)a. See also Rosier v. Rosier, 162 ......
-
Collins v. Collins
...upon which the guardian or investigator makes his recommendation. See, e.g., Bass v. Bass, 437 P.2d 324 (Alaska 1968); Moody v. Gilbert, 208 Ga. 784, 69 S.E.2d 874 (1952); Yearsley v. Yearsley, 94 Idaho 667, 496 P.2d 666 (1972); Aylor v. Aylor, 173 Colo. 294, 478 P.2d 302 (1970); Rohrbaugh ......