Skip to main content

Frix v. State

Citations

  • 680 S.E.2d 582
  • 298 Ga. App. 538
  • 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 2239
  • 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 734

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a statute that defined “electronic storage device” as “including floppy disks and other magnetic storage devices” or “CD-ROM” did not include text messages sent via cell phone
  • holding that a statute that defined “electronic storage device” as “including floppy disks and other magnetic storage devices” or “CD-ROM” did not include text messages sent via cell phone
  • deciding “that by listing specific examples, which are of the same class and kind,” the General Assembly intended to limit the definition to that class and concluding that because a cell phone was not similar to the listed examples, it was not encompassed by the statute
  • “When a criminal statute fairly and reasonably is subject to two constructions, one which would render an act criminal, the other which would not, the statute must be construed strictly against the State and in favor of the accused.”
  • “When a criminal statute fairly and reasonably is subject to two constructions, one which would render an act criminal, the other which would not, the statute must be construed strictly against the State and in favor of the accused.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Miller, Andrews, Barnes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.