City of Atlanta v. Frank
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, Presiding Judge.
1. The Supreme Court has said that Code Ann. § 69-308 requiring the ante litem notice “does not contemplate that the notice shall be drawn with all the technical niceties necessary in framing a declaration. The purpose of the law was simply to give to the municipality notice that the citizen or property owner has a grievance against it. It is necessary only that the city shall be put on notice of the general character of the complaint, and, in a general way, of the time, place, and extent of the injury. The Act recognizes, by the use of the words 'as near as…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Langley v. City CouncilSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- City of Calhoun v. HollandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1966
- Saunders v. City of FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- City of Atlanta v. FullerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- City of Columbus v. BarngroverCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
- City of Atlanta v. BlackSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
- Dague v. Riverdale Athletic Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1983
- City of Atlanta v. J. A. Jones Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
- Chiles v. City of SmyrnaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.