Legal Opinion

Hornsby v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 16, 1941No. 13545PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Justice?!

If the alleged conduct of the defendant constitutes a continuing nuisance as defined in the Code, § 72-101, the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief. Code, § 55-101; Russell v. Napier, 80 Ga. 77 (4 S. E. 857); Spencer v. Tumlin, 155 Ga. 341 (116 S. E. 600) ; Phinizy v. Gardner, 159 Ga. 136 (125 S. E. 195); Rosser v. Styron, 171 Ga. 238 (155 S. E. 23); 2 C. J. S. 46, § 52 (b). But,jin reaching a solution of the main question, we encounter the” following questions: (a) whether the defendant’s right to make use of her land is qualified or absolute, (b) whether the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. American Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of AtlantaSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Burke v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Flaherty v. MoranMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Metzger v. HochreinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Barger v. . BarringerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Prah v. MarettiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Poultryland Inc. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  3. Tucker v. Howard L. Carmichael & Sons Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  4. National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. OverstreetSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
  5. Peacock v. PeacockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API