Jaro, Inc. v. Shields, 45696
Decision Date | 26 February 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 45696,45696,1 |
Parties | JARO, INC. et al. v. Robert SHIELDS et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Northcutt, Edwards, Doss & Germano, M. Ken Doss, Atlanta, for appellants.
Harry J. Beecham, Decatur, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Act of March 8, 1968, Ga.L.1968, pp. 127-129 (Code Ann. § 3-1006 et seq.), provides for a statute of limitations for actions to recover damages for deficiencies in connection with improvements to real property. Section 1 of the Act states that 'No action to recover damages for any deficiency in the survey or plat, planning, design, specifications, supervision or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to real property * * * shall be brought * * * more than eight years after substantial completion of such an improvement.' Section 6 defines the phrase 'substantial completion' as the date when construction was sufficiently completed so that the woner could occupy for the use for which it was intended. Plaintiffs brought this action in November, 1969, to recover damages for defendants' negligence in making a survey and plat of plaintiffs' property in July 1960 upon which plaintiffs built a home. Defendants pleaded the statute of limitation in bar. Plaintiffs answered defendants' interrogatory that the residence was completed on August 12, 1960, and occupied by them on that date. The sole issue on appeal is whether the cited statute applies to this case. Held:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Flewellen
...is not to be construed retroactively in operation unless the language of the statute imperatively requires it." Jaro, Inc. v. Shields, 123 Ga.App. 391, 392, 181 S.E.2d 110 (1971). It is my opinion that "the language of [Code Ann. § 56-3404b(b) ] is plain and subject to only one construction......
-
Hanflik v. Ratchford
...Quinn v. Stafford, 257 Ga. 608, 362 S.E.2d 49 (1987); Allrid v. Emory Univ., 249 Ga. 35, 285 S.E.2d 521 (1982); Jaro v. Shields, 123 Ga.App. 391, 181 S.E.2d 110 (1971)); see also Dinh v. Rust Int'l Corp., 974 F.2d 500, 501-02 (4th Cir.1992) (accord). Thus, the constitutionality of the retro......
-
LFE Corp. (Automatic Signal Div.) v. Edenfield
...582, and thus under certain conditions can be applied retroactively. See e.g., Hatcher, supra; OCGA § 1-3-5. In Jaro, Inc. v. Shields, 123 Ga.App. 391, 181 S.E.2d 110, this court held that "[a] statute of limitation is remedial in nature." Id. at 392, 181 S.E.2d 110. Statutes of repose are ......
-
Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...Georgia law prohibits a statute from having retroactive effect unless the statute expressly provides for it. See, Jaro, Inc. v. Shields, 123 Ga.App. 391, 181 S.E.2d 110 (1971); O.C.G.A. § 1-3-5. Under Georgia law a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff can first bring the action. U-Hau......