Case ID: ga-app_127/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hall, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

47625.
    DUKE v. STEED et al.
   Hall, Presiding Judge.

One defendant in a negligence action appeals from the judgment. The sole issue on this appeal is the order of argument which was set by the court as follows: plaintiff’s counsel No. 1; co-defendant’s counsel No. 1; appellant’s counsel; co-defendant’s counsel No. 2; plaintiff’s counsel No. 2. The court’s ruling complies with all the limitations on its discretion in this matter. Plaintiff received opening and concluding arguments; no more than two counsel per side were permitted to argue; and only one was heard in conclusion. See Code § 24-3320. It was within the court’s discretion to allow o-defendant’s two counsel to argue before and after appellant’s. Hines v. Donaldson, 193 Ga. 783 (20 SE2d 134); Gunnells v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. 117 Ga. App. 123 (159 SE2d 730); Pealock v. Pealock, 227 Ga. 795 (183 SE2d 397).

Argued November 7, 1972

Decided November 14, 1972.

Neely, Freeman & Hawkins, Paul M. Hawkins, for appellant.

Tisinger & Tisinger, David H. Tisinger, Ross & Finch, I. J. Parkerson, Malcolm P. Smith, Wiggins & Camp, William J. Wiggins, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Quillian, JJ., concur.