Chordegian v. Williams
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Dissent
Carley,
Justice, dissenting.
I submit that the majority mischaracterizes this direct appeal as a “zoning case,” which it then erroneously dismisses by reliance upon inapplicable authority. “[T]he underlying subject matter generally controls over the relief sought in determining the proper procedure to follow to appeal.” (Emphasis supplied.) Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 469 (448 SE2d 192) (1994). Thus, the mere fact that a case may involve zoning does not invariably implicate the discretionary appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-35. Certainly, nothing in O S Advertising Co. v. Rubin, 267 Ga. 723,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Rebich v. MilesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
- Trend Development Corp. v. Douglas CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
- O S Advertising Co. of Georgia, Inc. v. RubinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
- Smith v. HodgsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Daniel v. YowSupreme Court of Georgia · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Byron v. BetancourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2000