Isley v. Little, 21476
| Decision Date | 08 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 21476,21476 |
| Citation | 217 Ga. 586,124 S.E.2d 80 |
| Parties | B. M. ISLEY v. Anne C. LITTLE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hicks & Howard, Claud M. Hicks, G. Robert Howard, Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
R. M. Reed, Robert E. Flournoy, Jr., Reed, Ingram & Flournoy, Marietta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. A lawful business may, by reason of its location in a residential area, cause hurt, inconvenience and damage to those residing in the vicinity and become a nuisance per accidens by reason of circumstances and surroundings. Code § 72-101. And such nuisance may be abated in an action at law, if outside a municipal corporation (Code § 72-201), or if within a municipal corporation (Code § 72-401).
2. Such nuisance may be abated in equity if the hurt or damage is irreparable or continuing. Code § 72-204. While mere apprehension of injury and damage is insufficient, where it is made to appear with reasonable certainty that irreparable harm and damage will occur from the operation of an otherwise lawful business amounting to a continuing nuisance, equity will restrain the construction, maintenance or operation of such lawful business. Elder v. City of Winder, 201 Ga. 511(1), 40 S.E.2d 659; Mayor &c. of Athens v. Co-op Cab Co., 207 Ga. 505(2), 62 S.E.2d 906; Powell v. Garmany, 208 Ga. 550, 551(1), 67 S.E.2d 781; Nottingham v. Elliott, 209 Ga. 481, 74 S.E.2d 93; Carroll v. Lovett, 213 Ga. 854, 855, 102 S.E.2d 704; Looper v. Ga. Southern Ry. Co., 213 Ga. 279 at 281, 99 S.E.2d 101.
3. Where, as here, the petitioners allege that the 'drag strip' is being constructed in an exclusively residential area, formerly zoned for residential purposes by the county governing authority before being taken into the city limits of Powder Springs, which has no zoning regulations, and in the immediate vicinity of the homes of several of the petitioners, and the 'drag strip' is described as a racing facility where teen-agers, amateur and professional drivers will race stock cars and racing vehicles for prizes and create loud and damaging noises by the roaring of motors; attain speeds of 90 to 150 miles per hour within a distance of one-fourth of a mile with the increased acceleration, crying of tires and concomitant noises arising therefrom and the necessity of also thereafter somehow stopping said vehicles, all within five-eighths of a mile, with the stopping and starting operation causing the crying from spinning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isley v. Little
...enjoin the construction of an automobile racing enterprise, commonly known as a 'drag strip.' It was held by this Court in Isley v. Little, 217 Ga. 586, 124 S.E.2d 80, that the petition as amended stated a cause of action. On the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the petitio......
-
Frazier v. Chambers
...same. Powell v. Garmany, 208 Ga. 550(1), 67 S.E.2d 781. See also Elder v. City of Winder, 201 Ga. 511, 40 S.E.2d 659 and Isley v. Little, 217 Ga. 586, 124 S.E.2d 80. 2. The vending and storing of gasoline and oil and other fuels useful in the ordinary commerce and industry of this day is no......
-
Gustafson v. Cotco Enterprises, Inc.
...Shew v. Deremer, 2 Ohio Misc. 65, 203 N.E.2d 863; Hooks v. International Speedways, Inc., 263 N.C. 686, 140 S.E.2d 387; Isley v. Little, 217 Ga. 586, 124 S.E.2d 80. 41 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 143, 144, Nuisances, Section 55 states as 'A court of equity may enjoin a threatened or anticipated n......
-
Camp v. Warrington
...93; Carroll v. Lovett, 213 Ga. 854, 855, 102 S.E.2d 704; Looper v. Ga. S & F Ry. Co., 213 Ga. 279, 281, 99 S.E.2d 101; Isley v. Little, 217 Ga. 586(2), 124 S.E.2d 80; Griffith v. Newman, 217 Ga. 533, 538, 123 S.E.2d 3. The complainants allege that the defendants are presently clearing and g......
-
CHAPTER 10 TOXIC TORTS PROPERTY DAMAGE AND PERSONAL INJURY: EMERGING THEORIES AND RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
...courts have issued injunctions even though the activity has not occurred and no harm has been suffered. See, e.g., Isley v. Little, 217 Ga. 586, 124 S.E.2d 80 (1962). The standard of proof in such cases is very stringent, and most courts will refuse to grant anticipatory injunctions if ther......