Hood v. Winding-Vista Recreation, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Residential Developments, Inc. v. Mann

    169 S.E.2d 305 (Ga. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    Applicable here is the well established principle that "Injunction is an extraordinary process, and the most important one which courts of equity issue; being so, it should never be granted except where there is grave danger of impending injury to person or property rights, and a mere threat or bare fear of such injury is not sufficient." Thomas v. Mayor c. of Savannah, 209 Ga. 866 (3) ( 76 S.E.2d 796) (one Justice not participating); Todd v. City of Dublin, 212 Ga. 36, 37 ( 89 S.E.2d 889); Hood v. Winding-Vista Recreation, Inc., 222 Ga. 345, 347 ( 149 S.E.2d 784). It follows that this portion of the judgment was erroneous.

  2. Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties

    32 Cal.App.3d 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 12 times

    '" ( Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, supra, 29 Cal. 2d at p. 339, quoting from Zahn v. Board of Public Works (1927) 274 U.S. 325, at p. 328 [71 L.Ed. 1074, at p. 1076, 47 S.Ct. 594].) For examples of decisions in which commercial recreational uses have been sanctioned because the provisions of the zoning ordinance have been construed to permit such use, see: Schumm v. Board of Supervisors (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 874 [ 295 P.2d 934]; Hopping v. Cobb County Fair Association, Inc. (1966) 222 Ga. 704 [ 152 S.E.2d 356]; Hood v. Winding-Vista Recreation, Inc. (1966) 222 Ga. 345 [ 149 S.E.2d 784]; Berberich v. Concordia Gymnastic Society (Mo. App. 1966) 402 S.W.2d 582; In re Hart's Appeal (1963) 410 Pa. 439 [ 189 A.2d 167]; In re Appeal of Hawcrest Association (1960) 399 Pa. 84 [ 160 A.2d 240]; Montgomery County v. Merlands Club (1953) 202 Md. 279 [ 96 A.2d 261]; and Drennen v. Mason (1931) 222 Ala. 652 [ 133 So. 689]. See also general sources set forth in footnote 10 above.