Adams v. Adams

4 Citing cases

  1. McGarity v. McGarity

    252 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. 1979)

    We disagree. See Adams v. Adams, 238 Ga. 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 919) (1977); Whitmire v. Whitmire, 236 Ga. 153 ( 223 S.E.2d 135) (1976). On the relevancy of the husband's alleged misconduct in the future alimony hearing see Bryan v. Bryan, 242 Ga. 826 (1979).

  2. Ruffin v. State

    243 Ga. 95 (Ga. 1979)   Cited 64 times
    In Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95, 252 S.E.2d 472 (1979), the court upheld a jury finding of a § (b)(7) aggravating circumstance stated in the words, "we the jurors conclude that this act was both horrible and inhuman."

    See also Jung v. State, 237 Ga. 73 ( 226 S.E.2d 599) (1976)." Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 919) (1977). Enumeration 6 is without merit.

  3. Strickland v. Strickland

    238 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. 1977)

    Therefore, on the authority of Dickson, the trial court properly granted the husband's motion for summary judgment of divorce. Accord, Adams v. Adams, 238 Ga. 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 919) (1977). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

  4. Smith v. Smith

    235 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. 1977)   Cited 3 times

    It is interlocutory in nature and appealable only through the procedures set out in Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) 2. See Anderson v. Anderson, 237 Ga. 886 ( 230 S.E.2d 272) (1976); Anders v. Anders, 238 Ga. 79 ( 231 S.E.2d 64) (1976); Adams v. Adams, 238 Ga. 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 919) (1977). Since the order granting judgment on the pleadings as to the issue of divorce is an interlocutory order and not a final judgment as contended by appellant, the temporary alimony order is still viable.