Goodyear Tire Rubber Company, Inc. v. Johnson

3 Citing cases

  1. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Johnson

    170 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 8 times

    This is the second appearance of the case in this court. See Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Johnson, 117 Ga. App. 278 ( 160 S.E.2d 211). On the first trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and the trial court granted the plaintiff a new trial. This court affirmed.

  2. Pierce v. Gaskins

    309 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 8 times

    In order for this court to disturb such judgment it must be shown that the court abused its discretion in granting it, and the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the granting of the motion by the trial court. See Goodyear Tire c. Co., v. Johnson, 117 Ga. App. 278 ( 160 S.E.2d 211); Martin v. Denson, 117 Ga. App. 288 ( 160 S.E.2d 210); Berman v. Berman, 231 Ga. 216, 217-218 (3) ( 200 S.E.2d 870). Plaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion contending that evidence "overwhelmingly supported" same.

  3. State Highway Department v. Lord

    123 Ga. App. 178 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    This being the case, the only question we will consider is whether the verdict was demanded by the law and the evidence. Queen v. State Hwy. Dept., 100 Ga. App. 190 ( 110 S.E.2d 541); Goodyear Tire c. Co. v. Johnson, 117 Ga. App. 278 ( 160 S.E.2d 211). An examination of the transcript shows a definite conflict in the evidence as to the value of the land taken and the consequential damages to the land not taken. The evidence therefore did not demand the verdict. Judgment affirmed. Quillian and Whitman, JJ., concur.