Legal Opinion

City of Atlanta v. Frank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 5, 1969No. 44542PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. Langley v. City CouncilSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  2. City of Calhoun v. HollandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1966
  3. Saunders v. City of FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  4. Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
  5. City of Atlanta v. FullerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. City of Columbus v. BarngroverCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
  2. City of Atlanta v. BlackSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
  3. Dague v. Riverdale Athletic Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1983
  4. City of Atlanta v. J. A. Jones Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
  5. Chiles v. City of SmyrnaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API