Brooks v. City of Atlanta
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages, from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. November 22, 1906.
1Opinion of the CourtPowell, J.
The two views, sometimes separately expressed, in regard to purprestures or obstructions placed in highways by adjacent propertjr owners in the exigencies of their business, — the one, that "the primary purpose of a street is for passage and travel, and any unauthorized and illegal obstruction to its free use comes within the legal notion of a nuisance, and any such nuisance as would leave the street or way in an unsafe and dangerous condition, or impair its úse in an unreasonable manner, or for- an unreasonable time, would make the city [and the person maintaining the obstruction] liable for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mayor of Columbus v. JaquesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1860
- Simon v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
- Southern Railway Co. v. HardinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Bloom Sons v. Americus Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Garrett v. Morris & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Mason v. FrankelCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Collier v. PollardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Belk-Matthews Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
- Southeastern Pipe-Line Co. v. GarrettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Keebler v. WillardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.