Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta

12 Citing cases

  1. Green Bull Georgia Partners, LLC v. Register

    301 Ga. 472 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Although the appellate courts also have the authority to grant a stay or injunction pending appeal, an application for such relief ordinarily ought to be directed in the first instance to the trial court. See Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125, 125 (223 SE2d 101) (1976). When a court considers an application for a stay or injunction pending appeal, it must weigh all of the pertinent equities, including the likelihood that the appellant will prevail on the merits of his appeal, the extent to which the applicant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay or injunction, the extent to which a stay or injunction would harm the other parties with an interest in the proceedings, and the public interest.

  2. Green Bull Ga. Partners, LLC v. Register

    301 Ga. 472 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    Although the appellate courts also have the authority to grant a stay or injunction pending appeal, an application for such relief ordinarily ought to be directed in the first instance to the trial court. See Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 , 125 (223 SE2d 101 ) (1976). When a court considers an application for a stay or injunction pending appeal, it must weigh all of the pertinent equities, including the likelihood that the appellant will prevail on the merits of his appeal, the extent to which the applicant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay or injunction, the extent to which a stay or injunction would harm the other parties with an interest in the proceedings, and the public interest.

  3. Speedwell United Methodist Church v. Chatham County

    599 S.E.2d 185 (Ga. 2004)

    Because the Wal-Mart project that is at issue has been substantially completed, and because the appellants did not seek to stay the trial court's denial of injunctive relief, which denial permitted the project to be built, the appellants are no longer entitled to relief stopping the project. Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495 ( 520 SE2d 909) (1999); Jackson v. Bibb County School Dist., 271 Ga. 18 ( 515 SE2d 151) (1999); F.O. Thacker Contracting Co. v. C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., 251 Ga. 860 ( 310 SE2d 701) (1984); Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 SE2d 101) (1976). Moreover, because the issue whether Wal-Mart will attempt future development of other portions of its property is speculative and does not involve existing facts as to that development, the possibility of that future development does not save the case from being moot.

  4. Virginia Highlands Civic Association v. Pace Properties

    535 S.E.2d 230 (Ga. 2000)

    (Emphasis supplied.) Citizens To Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 S.E.2d 101) (1976). See also Jackson v. Bibb County School Dist., 271 Ga. 18, 19 ( 515 S.E.2d 151) (1999).

  5. Brown v. Spann

    271 Ga. 495 (Ga. 1999)   Cited 21 times

    Further, the filing of a notice of appeal in injunction cases does not serve as a supersedeas. Citizens to Save Paulding Cty. v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 S.E.2d 101) (1976). Although appeals may be determined not to be moot even in the absence of a live controversy between the named parties, this is not such a case.

  6. Jackson v. Bibb County School District

    271 Ga. 18 (Ga. 1999)   Cited 18 times
    In Jackson, supra, we dismissed the appeal as moot because appellants failed to seek a supersedeas even though the sale took place only hours after the trial court's decision.

    See also OCGA ยง 9-11-62 (a) (unless otherwise ordered by the court, final judgment in an action for an injunction shall not be stayed during pendency of an appeal). Accord Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 S.E.2d 101) (1976); Padgett v. Cowart, 232 Ga. 633 ( 208 S.E.2d 455) (1974). In order to prevent their appeal from becoming moot, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to seek a supersedeas from the trial court, or from this Court in the event the trial court refused, to prevent an immediate sale of the property.

  7. The Board of Commissioners of Richmond County v. Cooper

    259 Ga. 785 (Ga. 1990)   Cited 10 times

    ] See also Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 S.E.2d 101) (1976); Padgett v. Cowart, 232 Ga., supra; Clarke v. City of Atlanta, 231 Ga. 84 ( 200 S.E.2d 264) (1973); Georgia Appellate Practice Handbook, ยง 5.2.4. Appellants argue that although the license has been issued to appellee the case is not moot until the period of the license has expired.

  8. Goswick v. Murray Cnty. Bd. of Educ

    636 S.E.2d 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    Similarly, we hold that the ALJ and Board orders here, which did not award monies but rather relieved the employer from taking certain actions "at any time," remained in force pending the appeal in the absence of a special order of supersedeas. Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 SE2d 101) (1976). 4. The above rulings moot any remaining enumerations of error.

  9. Babb v. Putnam County

    269 Ga. App. 431 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    Board of Commrs. of Richmond County v. Cooper, 259 Ga. 785 ( 387 SE2d 138) (1990).Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 SE2d 101) (1976).Padgett v. Cowart, 232 Ga. 633 ( 208 SE2d 455) (1974).

  10. Turpen v. Rabun Cty. Bd. of Commrs

    245 Ga. App. 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    Allowing citizen declaratory judgment suit related to a proposed acquisition

    The filing of a notice of appeal in injunction cases does not serve as a supersedeas. Citizens To Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 ( 223 S.E.2d 101) (1976). When the injunctive relief sought by appellants cannot be granted the appeal is moot. Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 496 ( 520 S.E.2d 909) (1999).