lawskills
Google
search the Web search LawSkills.com
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
BRANCH et al. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
ANSLEY PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
BURNS v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE' CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
KIM-MAC, INC. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
MCCLATCHEY v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA v. BRANCH et al.
SANDLER v. BRANCH et al.
50268.
50269.
50270.
50271.
50272.
50273.
50274.
BELL, Chief Judge.
Appeals from the board of adjustment. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Williams.
The appellees Sandler Associates and Environmental Planning Associates, Inc., purchased an apartment complex in Atlanta which they in turn contracted to sell to appellee Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, contingent on the renovation of the complex to a new condition. A building permit authorizing the restoration work to proceed was issued by the city building inspector. Appellants, property owners in the vicinity of the complex, then made request for the revocation of the permit claiming that the proposed renovation would result in a violation of the zoning ordinance. The chief building inspector of the City of Atlanta denied the request to revoke. Appellants appealed to the Atlanta-Fulton County Joint Board of Adjustment where they again sought the revocation of the building permit. After a hearing, the board revoked the building permit. Appellee appealed to the superior court which reversed the board's revocation of the permit. Thereafter, the court entered an order of supersedeas pending appeal which permitted the renovation work to proceed, but limited occupancy to 18 of the 32 apartments being restored. Appellants have appealed from the order of reversal and appellees have filed cross appeals. Held:
2. The cross appeals are mooted by our decision and they are dismissed.
Jack H. Watson, Jr., C. David Vaughan, Charles H. Tisdale, Jr., J. D. Humphries, III, Ralph H. Witt, Paul Hanes, for appellees.
Thomas B. Branch, III, Gregory J. Digel, for appellants.
ARGUED MARCH 3, 1975 -- DECIDED MAY 8, 1975.
Friday July 18 12:48 CDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com