Ackerman/Adair Realty Co. v. Coppedge

7 Citing cases

  1. Shivers v. Webster

    480 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    ] When facts are such that the jury, if permitted to hear them, may or may not make an inference pertinent to the issue, according to the view they may take of them, in connection with the other facts in evidence, they are such that the jury ought to be permitted to hear them. [Cits.]" Ackerman/Adair Realty Co. v. Coppedge, 155 Ga. App. 903, 907 (2) ( 273 S.E.2d 645) (1980). Furthermore, evidence inadmissible for one purpose may be relevant and admissible for another purpose.

  2. Williams v. Terry

    398 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 6 times

    On appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Ackerman/Adair Realty Co. v. Coppedge, 155 Ga. App. 903, 907 ( 273 S.E.2d 645) (1980). The evidence showed appellant was crushed against his garage wall by a runaway vehicle in October of 1979. He was admitted to Memorial Hospital of Waycross where he was treated for broken bones and internal injuries.

  3. Target Properties v. Gilbert

    384 S.E.2d 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    On appeal, we must construe the evidence with every inference and presumption in favor of upholding the verdict. Ackerman, Adair Realty Co. v. Coppedge, 155 Ga. App. 903 (3) ( 273 S.E.2d 645) (1980). Gilbert testified that the contract he received back from Target's agent had the special stipulation date changed to May 17 and the initials of Target's president acknowledging the change.

  4. Dept. of Transp. v. Petkas

    189 Ga. App. 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 20 times
    In Dept. of Transp. v. Petkas, 189 Ga. App. 633 (6) (377 S.E.2d 166) (1988), this court held that the DOT should have been allowed to present evidence that a high traffic count was not entirely advantageous, because of a greater incidence of traffic accidents, and therefore detracted from a property's value.

    SOGNIER, Judge, dissenting. Construing the evidence in favor of upholding the jury's verdict, Ackerman/Adair Realty Co. v. Coopedge, 155 Ga. App. 903, 907 (3) ( 273 S.E.2d 645) (1980), and bearing in mind the well established rule that a judgment will not be disturbed where there is any evidence in the record to sustain the verdict, in the absence of some material error of law, Bullock v. Bullock, 178 Ga. App. 336, 337 ( 343 S.E.2d 121) (1986), I must dissent from the majority's reversal of the verdict in Case No. 76525 since evidence supporting the verdict is present in the record and I find no material errors mandating reversal. 1. The trial court refused to admit approximately 50 photographs depicting the subject property which were shot by a DOT employee shortly after the date of taking.

  5. Progressive Rural Telephone Cooperative v. Austin

    345 S.E.2d 113 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    One of the appellant's employees testified that the material looked like "telephone stuff" to him, and none of the appellant's employees who testified was able to state positively that the debris did not contain telephone wire. "When facts are such that the jury, if permitted to hear them, may or may not make an inference pertinent to the issue, according to the view they may take of them, in connection with the other facts in evidence, they are such that the jury ought to be permitted to hear them. (Cits.)" Ackerman/Adair Realty Co. v. Coppedge, 155 Ga. App. 903, 907 (2) ( 273 S.E.2d 645) (1980). 3. The appellant objected to the following questioning of its manager on cross-examination on the ground that the questions were hypothetical in nature and were not premised on matters in evidence: "Q. Mr. Mullis, if that wire, if anybody from Progressive Rural left that wire out there they would have been violating your rules, wouldn't they? A. Absolutely. Q. And that would have been a violation of the supervisor's responsibility to allow that to be left out there? A. That's very true."

  6. Concrete Constr. Co. v. City of Atlanta

    339 S.E.2d 266 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 9 times

    [Cit.] Where the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant is in conflict, the jury is the final arbiter [cit.], and after the verdict is approved by the trial judge, the evidence must be construed so as to uphold the verdict even where there are discrepancies. [Cits.]" Ackerman c. Realty Co. v. Coppedge, 155 Ga. App. 903, 907-908 (3) ( 273 S.E.2d 645) (1980). Appellee introduced evidence that appellants had been made aware of the location of the electrical conduit before the gas line was installed, that appellants knew at least six inches of separation between pipes was necessary as a matter of good engineering practice but that nevertheless the gas line was installed by CCC under AGL's supervision in hazardously close proximity to the electrical conduit.

  7. Thico Plan, Inc. v. Ashkouti

    171 Ga. App. 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 7 times

    The language requested was taken from a case involving an insured's right to the cash value of a life insurance policy. Since the present case involves a fire insurance policy which contained no provision for the accrual of cash value, the requested instruction was inapplicable and its refusal was not error. Ackerman/Adair Realty Co. v. Coppedge, 155 Ga. App. 903 (1) ( 273 S.E.2d 645) (1980). 5. Appellees' efforts to recover against appellants began in 1980.