ERVIN COMPANY v. Brown
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Felton, Justice.
The construction of a zoning ordinance, under the facts, is a question of law for the courts, and in construing it the cardinal rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the lawmaking body. City of Rome v. Shadyside &c. Gardens, 93 Ga. App. 759, 763 (92 SE2d 734). In determining the intent of the defendant commission in rezoning the subject property, all of the commission’s words used to effect this revision should be given due weight and meaning; however awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative intent manifested by it must be ascertained and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Davison v. Woolworth Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Smith, Barry & Co. v. Davis Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- City of Rome v. Shadyside Memorial Gardens, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
- Falligant v. BarrowSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Jowers v. GriffinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Cross v. Hall CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Hinson v. Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Stanfield v. Glynn CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 2006
- Burton v. Glynn CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 2015
- DeKalb County v. Post Apartment Homes, L.P.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.