City of Hoschton v. Horizon Communities

6 Citing cases

  1. Taylor v. The Devereux Found.

    316 Ga. 44 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 10 times
    Declining to follow earlier decision where later decision that conflicted properly recited and applied a "bedrock principle"

    Duffy St. S.R.O., Inc. v. Mobley , 266 Ga. 849, 850, 471 S.E.2d 507 (1996). See also City of Hoschton v. Horizon Communities , 287 Ga. 567, 569, 697 S.E.2d 824 (2010) ("An award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 will be affirmed if there is any evidence to support it."). Bad faith warranting an award of attorney fees must be based on conduct "during the transaction out of which the lawsuit arose."

  2. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. SRM Grp.

    357 Ga. App. 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)

    An award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 will be affirmed if there is any evidence to support it." City of Hoschton v. Horizon Communities , 287 Ga. 567, 569 (3), 697 S.E.2d 824 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted).In our former opinion, we stated that the increased workers’ compensation insurance premium that was the basis of the parties’ dispute resulted from an audit of SRM's employee risk classifications and Travelers’ refusal to reclassify those employees.

  3. Quarters Decatur, LLC v. City of Decatur

    347 Ga. App. 723 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that the city’s letter to the plaintiff was not a final decision for purposes of appealing to the zoning board where the letter indicated that further review of its decision was necessary

    The Quarters argues that the superior court erred in dismissing its petition against the City on the ground that the City was not a proper respondent. Where a petition for mandamus seeks the performance of a legal obligation of a governmental entity, it is proper for the petition to allege a cause of action against both the governmental entity and the official required by law to perform the specific act. City of Hoschton v. Horizon Communities , 287 Ga. 567, 568 (1), 697 S.E.2d 824 (2010). We are not persuaded by the City’s argument that the relief sought in the petition does not encompass any legal obligations of the City.

  4. Singh v. Sterling United, Inc.

    326 Ga. App. 504 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 10 times

    In its counterclaim, Sterling United asked for a recovery of attorney fees and costs in prosecuting the action because Singh had acted in bad faith and had been stubbornly litigious with respect to the underlying transaction. The trial court later charged the jury, consistent with OCGA § 13–6–11, that it could allow attorney fees on Sterling United's counterclaim if Singh had acted in bad faith or has been stubbornly litigious or had caused Sterling United unnecessary trouble and expense. “An award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13–6–11 will be affirmed if there is any evidence to support it.” City of Hoschton v. Horizon Communities, 287 Ga. 567, 569(3), 697 S.E.2d 824 (2010). Sterling United argues that the fee award was authorized by OCGA § 13–6–6, which allows for the recovery of nominal damages “sufficient to cover the costs of bringing the action.

  5. Singh v. Sterling United, Inc.

    A13A2104 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2014)

    The trial court later charged the jury, consistent with OCGA § 13-6-11, that it could allow attorney fees on Sterling United's counterclaim if Singh had acted in bad faith or has been stubbornly litigious or had caused Sterling United unnecessary trouble and expense. "An award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 will be affirmed if there is any evidence to support it." City of Hoschton v. Horizon Communities, 287 Ga. 567, 569 (3) (697 SE2d 824) (2010). Sterling United argues that the fee award was authorized by OCGA § 13-6-6, which allows for the recovery of nominal damages "sufficient to cover the costs of bringing the action.

  6. Water's Edge Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Reliford

    315 Ga. App. 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 11 times

    We review the decision about whether and to what extent to award attorney fees and expenses under the deferential “any evidence” standard. See City of Hoschton v. Horizon Communities, 287 Ga. 567, 569(3), 697 S.E.2d 824 (2010). Sitting as the trier of fact, the trial court in the present case found, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, that the Relifords had not caused unreasonable trouble and expense to Water's Edge. But no transcript was made of that evidentiary hearing, and, therefore, review of the trial court's finding under the “any evidence” standard is precluded by the state of the record before us.