Kingsdale Apartments, Inc. v. Board of Lights & Waterworks
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Mobley, Justice.
We need not determine at this juncture whether or not defendant is required to furnish plaintiff the services by virtue of an enforceable contract, an estoppel, or an ordinance of the City of Marietta, because the record shows that this petition was prematurely brought. Plaintiff’s proposal was to consent to the annexation of areas of the total tract in stages as they were developed and construction completed. The defendant accepted this proposal, thus agreeing to furnish services to each component area as it was developed and construction was completed. Plaintiff does not…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Carter & FordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Smith v. Georgia Loan, Savings & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Ford & Co. v. LawsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Gilleland v. WelchSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Crosby v. Georgia Realty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kirkland v. MorrisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
- Bagwell v. TrammelSupreme Court of Georgia · 2015
- Bagwell v. TrammelSupreme Court of Georgia · 2015
- Cain v. ChamblessCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964