Pruitt v. Meeks
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Felton, Justice.
1. The ordinance in question provides that, the governing authority may grant or deny the application for a conditional use permit. On its face the decision of this court in Hyman v. Pruitt, 226 Ga. 625, may be construed to mean that, the governing authority of Gwinnett County had an unbridled discretion to grant or deny an application for such a permit and that its decision was therefore not reviewable here. In view of the cases hereinafter cited, it is so plain that in such cases where ordinances prevent property owners from using their property as they choose, the test of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Gorieb v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Schofield v. BishopSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Nichols v. PirkleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Dougherty County v. WebbSupreme Court of Georgia · 1986
- City of Cumming v. FlowersSupreme Court of Georgia · 2017
- City of Atlanta v. Wansley Moving & Storage Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1980
- Matthews v. Fayette CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
- Gilmer County v. City of East EllijaySupreme Court of Georgia · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.