Reagan v. Reagan
| Decision Date | 12 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 23008,23008 |
| Parties | Esther Naoma REAGAN v. William Alfred REAGAN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The grant of the new trial had the effect of eliminating everything still pending in the old trial. Therefore, the pending motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict became a nullity when this court ordered that a new trial be had.
Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Floyd B. Chaite, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Clower & Royal, E. J. Clower, Robert L. Royal, Rome, for defendant in error.
This is a divorce case which appears before this court for the second time. The plaintiff, William Alfred Reagan, filed suit for divorce against the defendant, Esther Naoma Reagan, alleging wilful desertion. In her cross petition, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff cruelly mistreated her and wilfully abandoned her, and she prayed for the grant of a divorce and permanent alimony. A trial was had and the court adopted a verdict which granted a divorce to the plaintiff and gave permanent alimony to the defendant. In Reagan v. Reagan, 220 Ga. 587, 140 S.E.2d 841 this court held that the verdict was inconsistent and ordered a new trial. In the course of the opinion it was said: (Emphasis supplied). On April 2, 1965, after judgment on the remittitur was entered by the trial court, a hearing was held on defendant's motion for judgment hotwithstanding the verdict. This hearing had been continued to that date by agreement of the parties and the court. After the hearing the motion was overruled and the sole assignment of error is on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamilton
...court is to require the case to be heard de novo unless specific direction be given in regard thereto.") (quoting Reagan v. Reagan , 221 Ga. 173, 174, 143 S.E.2d 736 (1965) ) (citations and punctuation omitted); cf. Trauth v. State , 295 Ga. 874, 876, 763 S.E.2d 854 (2014). When the trial c......
-
The State Of Ariz. v. Diaz, 2 CA-CR 2009-0401
...ready for trial as if there had been no trial.'" Bankhead v. State, 558 S.E.2d 407, 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001), quoting Reagan v. Reagan, 143 S.E.2d 736, 737 (Ga. 1965). Thus, the grant of a new trial negated any alleged errors in the first trial. In sum, the double jeopardy clauses did not ba......
-
Trauth v. State
...much in the way that the grant of a new trial has the effect of “set[ting] aside all proceedings in the old trial,” Reagan v. Reagan, 221 Ga. 173, 174, 143 S.E.2d 736 (1965), the grant of a new appeal to a defendant who was improperly forced to proceed pro se in his first appeal would have ......
-
Bankhead v. State
...Anderson v. Clark, 70 Ga. 362(2) [(1883)]. Leventhal v. Baumgartner, 209 Ga. 404, 73 S.E.2d 194 [ (1952) ]. Reagan v. Reagan, 221 Ga. 173, 174, 143 S.E.2d 736 (1965); see also Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 14-17, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (as a general rule, a post-conviction......