Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
The use of streets and highways is not absolute and unrestricted. Such use is subject to reasonable regulation by the public. So the operators of jitneys or busses on streets have been subjected to more or less stringent regulations. They can be required to give bonds to indemnify persons for injuries to their persons or property growing out of the negligent operation of these vehicles, and to pay larger license fees than those imposed upon operators of taxicabs, and graded according to,the seating capacity of the vehicles employed. Hazleton v. Atlanta, 144 Ga. 775 (87 S. E. 1043); Donella v.…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Eubank v. City of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Woodard v. Laurens CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
- Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. DatrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
- McIntyre v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Gilchrist v. BierringSupreme Court of Iowa · 1944
- Terry v. CITY OF PORTLANDOregon Supreme Court · 1955
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.