Barrett v. Hal W. Lamb & Associates, Inc.
Supreme Court of Georgia
1DissentUndercofler, Presiding Justice
The Commissioners of Cobb County acted constitutionally in refusing to spot zone the appellees’ property so as to allow commercial development in a totally residential area. I therefore dissent to the majority opinion.
"Spot zoning” has been described as " 'the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.’ ” 2 Rathkopf, The Law of Planning and Zoning § 26.02, p. 26-1, quoting Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N. Y. 115, 123 (96…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Rodgers v. Village of TarrytownNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Barrett v. HambySupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
- Snow v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Cross v. Hall CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Vulcan Materials Co. v. GriffithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.