Bell v. Marsh
Citations
- 80 Cal. 411
- 22 P. 170
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 930
Syllabus
<p>Equity Case—Special Verdict—New Trial—Time for Service of Notice — Equitable Defense. — In an equity case, the verdict of a jury upon special issues is merely advisory to the court, and the time within which notice of intention to move for a new trial must be served does not begin to run until the court has adopted or rejected the findings of the jury. This rule applies to the trial by jury of an equitable defense to an action at law, upon which special issues are submitted to the jury, • if the case is treated by the court and by the parties in all respects as an action in equity, whether properly or improperly.</p> <p>Id.—Completion of Trial —New Trial — Construction of Code.— Section 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be construed together with section 656 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and no proceedings for a new trial can be had until after the trial is completed, and a final decision is reached by the court or jury. The action is not tried until all the issues have been disposed of; and a special verdict of a jury in an equity case does not render the action “tried by a jury” within the purview of section 659 of the-Code of Civil Procedure.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Excluding evidence pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-6 is a particularly harsh sanction and should be imposed only where there is a showing of prejudice to the defense and bad faith by the State.” (citation and punctuation omitted)
- “Decisions about what questions to ask on cross-examination are quintessential trial strategy... and will rarely constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” (citation and punctuation omitted)
- “The decision whether to impeach a witness through introduction of certified copies of prior convictions is a matter of trial strategy.” (citation and punctuation omitted)
- “Decisions about what questions to ask on cross-examination are quintessential trial strategy . . . and will rarely constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” (citation and punctuation omitted)
- testimony presented at new trial hearing — that co-indictee confessed to witness that he, not the defendant, shot victim — was impeaching testimony and did not establish as fact that co-indictee’s trial testimony was knowingly and wilfully false
- testimony presented at new trial hearing — that co-indictee confessed to witness that he, not the defendant, shot victim — was impeaching testimony and did not establish as fact that co- indictee’s trial testimony was knowingly and wilfully false
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Paterson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.