§

Gladowski v. Department of Family & Children Services

281 Ga. App. 299 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)
Gladowski v. Department of Family & Children Services

5 Citing cases

  1. Coastal Marshlands Prot. v. Center for Sus. Coast

    286 Ga. App. 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times

    We conduct a de novo review with respect to claimed errors of law in the superior court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga. App. 141 ( 542 SE2d 538) (2000); Gladowski v. Dept. of Family c. Svcs., 281 Ga. App. 299 ( 635 SE2d 886) (2006); OCGA § 50-13-19 (h). When the General Assembly enacted the CMPA, it expressly recognized the varied values and functions of Georgia's coastal marshlands that CMPA regulation protects.

  2. Longleaf Energy v. Friends of Chattahoochee

    298 Ga. App. 753 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 14 times
    Rejecting lower court ruling that imposition of IGCC technology on a proposed pulverized coal facility would not redefine the source

    In addressing claimed errors of law in the superior court's ruling, we conduct a de novo review. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga. App. 141 ( 542 SE2d 538) (2000); Gladowski v. Dept. of Family c. Svcs., 281 Ga. App. 299 ( 635 SE2d 886) (2006). 2.

  3. Carolina Tobacco Co. v. Baker

    295 Ga. App. 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that Georgia product liability laws contain complex distinctions between a "manufacturer" subject to strict liability and a "product seller" who is not, and that the concept of "manufacturer" has been refined by case law to mean one who is "actively involved in the design, specifications, or formulation of a defective final product or of a defective component part which failed during use of a product and caused injury." (quoting Davenport , 644 S.E.2d at 507 )

    (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Gladowski v. Dept. of Family c. Sues., 281 Ga. App. 299 ( 635 SE2d 886) (2006); Dept. of Public Safety v. Bafford, 223 Ga. App. 639, 640 ( 478 SE2d 444) (1996).Barrett v. Sanders, 262 Ga. App. 63, 65 ( 584 SE2d 676) (2003).

  4. Atmos Energy Corp. v. Public Service

    290 Ga. App. 243 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    In Atmos Energy Corp., this Court held that an order from the PSC designated as a "Final Order" was not a final decision under the APA where the order stated that a more detailed order was forthcoming and where the PSC expressly retained jurisdiction over the matter for the purpose of entering such further order or orders deemed proper by the PSC. Atmos Energy Corp., 290 Ga. App. at 246-247 (1) (a), 659 S.E.2d 385.

    See Lewis, 217 Ga. App. at 399-400. See also Gladowski v. Dept. of Family c. Svcs., 281 Ga. App. 299, 302-303 (2) ( 635 SE2d 886) (2006); Miller v. Ga. Real Estate Comm., 136 Ga. App. 718 (1) ( 222 SE2d 183) (1975). Accordingly, we vacate the superior court's order denying the PSC's motion to dismiss and affirming the administrative decision of the PSC, and we remand with the instruction that the superior court dismiss Atmos' petition for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction.

  5. Ga. Dep't of Revenue v. Moore

    762 S.E.2d 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Inasmuch as the superior court's final ruling was based on errors of law (namely, that the Department was precluded from collecting the assessments from Moore based on the voluntary payment and joinder of necessary party statutes), the judgment is reversed. See Gladowski v. Dept. of Family & Children Svcs., 281 Ga.App. 299, 635 S.E.2d 886 (2006) (“In an appeal from a superior court's review of a final agency decision, our function is to determine whether the superior court has in its own final ruling committed an error of law.”) (citation, punctuation and footnote omitted); Children's Hosp. of Pittsburgh v. Ga. Dept. of Medical Assistance, 235 Ga.App. 697, 700(1), 509 S.E.2d 725 (1998) (reversing the superior court's affirmance of the administrative agency's decision when the superior court committed an error of law); Miles v. Carr, 224 Ga.App. 247, 248(1), 480 S.E.2d 282 (1997) (reversing superior court's judgment when the court committed a legal error in reversing the ruling of the administrative agency, and reiterating that “in reviewing a superior court's order in a case under the Administrative Procedure Act, our function is to determine whether the superior court has in its own final ruling committed an error of law”) (citation and punctuation omitted).Judgment reversed.