Allen v. San José Land & Water Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that trial court’s comment did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57, where “the comment was in the nature of a permissible clarification of procedure”
• holding that the trial court’s explanation to the jury about why the defendant’s video-recorded interview with the police had been redacted did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57
• stating that there is no improper bolstering when a witness's statement does not directly address the credibility of another witness
• stating that there is no improper bolstering when a witness’s statement does not directly address the credibility of another witness
• “It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.”
• “When a witness’s statement does not directly address the credibility of another witness . . . there is no improper bolstering.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).