Stancil v. Gwinnett County, s. S89A0281
| Decision Date | 26 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | Nos. S89A0281,S89A0318,s. S89A0281 |
| Citation | 384 S.E.2d 666,259 Ga. 507 |
| Parties | STANCIL v. GWINNETT COUNTY. (Two Cases) |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Macklyn A. Smith, Sr., Lawrenceville, for Stancil.
Richard A. Carothers, Caryl Brinson, Anthony O.L. Powell, Webb, Fowler & Tanner, Lawrenceville, Russell T. Bryant, for Gwinnett County.
Stancil's appeal is from an order of the Gwinnett Superior Court entered in open court April 26, 1989, dismissing the City of Lawrenceville; an order of May 10, 1989, denying injunctive relief against Gwinnett County; and an order of July 10, 1989, awarding attorney fees to the City of Lawrenceville. He filed a notice of appeal on June 7, 1989.
The City of Lawrenceville moves to dismiss the appeal from the order of April 26, 1989, dismissing the City of Lawrenceville because the notice of appeal was 10 days late. The City of Lawrenceville seeks to dismiss the appeal from the award of attorney fees because the appellant did not file an application as required by OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10) for an appeal from an award of attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14.
The question is whether the dismissal of the City of Lawrenceville was a final order appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34. The dismissal of one of multiple defendants is not an appealable order unless the judge has made it a final order under OCGA § 9-11-54(b). Home Mart Building Centers, Inc. v. Wallace, 139 Ga.App. 49, 228 S.E.2d 22 (1976); Spivey v. Rogers, 167 Ga.App. 729, 307 S.E.2d 677 (1983). Therefore, the time for notice of appeal did not run from that date but from the May 10 order. In regard to the claim that an application was necessary to appeal the award of attorney fees, since this was appealed along with other matters directly appealable, an application was not necessary. See Haggard v. State Board of Regents, 257 Ga. 524, 360 S.E.2d 566 (1987).
Appellant Stancil, a citizen of Gwinnett County, brought this action for injunctive relief against Gwinnett County and the City of Lawrenceville. In April, 1989, the Board of Commissioners of Gwinnett County passed a resolution expressing support for the concept of redevelopment of Downtown Lawrenceville prepared by the City of Lawrenceville and the Lawrenceville Downtown Redevelopment Task Force. Part of the money raised by one per cent sales tax approved by Gwinnett County voters at a special election in November, 1987, is earmarked for renovation of the court house in Lawrenceville. Appellant is primarily concerned that the grounds of the court house will be encroached upon to create parking spaces around the court house square. Appellant sought to have the county either enjoined from proceeding with plans to alter the court house grounds or enjoined from collection of the tax unless the grounds of the court house are preserved. He sought to have both defendants enjoined from altering the grounds.
The trial court dismissed the City of Lawrenceville as a party and dismissed the complaint for injunction against the county on the ground that it was premature. The court found that while plans were being considered for redevelopment of Lawrenceville Square, no final plans had been approved. Further, there has been no decision to spend sales tax proceeds on the redevelopment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hallman v. Emory University
...unless it appears that such award was appealed as part of a judgment that is directly appealable. See also Stancil v. Gwinnett County, 259 Ga. 507, 508, 384 S.E.2d 666 (1989); Haggard v. Bd. of Regents, etc., of Ga., 257 Ga. 524, 526(4) (a), 360 S.E.2d 566 In Ga. L.1989, p. 408, § 2, the Ge......
-
Watkins v. Watkins
...Ins. Co., 252 Ga. 58, 311 S.E.2d 470 (1984). A contrary holding would place form over substance. See also Stancil v. Gwinnett County, 259 Ga. 507, 508, 384 S.E.2d 666 (1989); Haggard v. Board of Regents, 257 Ga. 524, 526, 360 S.E.2d 566 (1987) (in both cases, we held that, even though an or......
-
Heiskell v. Roberts
...an application as part of their direct appeal of the mandamus order authorized by OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(7). See Stancil v. Gwinnett County, 259 Ga. 507, 508, 384 S.E.2d 666 (1989).3 Thus, in contrast to the provisions of the Judicial Branch Article, the Executive Branch Article says:When any pub......
-
Avren v. Cases)
...the case was pending. See also Haggard v. Bd. of Regents, etc., of Ga., 257 Ga. 524(4a), 360 S.E.2d 566 (1987); Stancil v. Gwinnett County, 259 Ga. 507, 384 S.E.2d 666 (1989); Rolleston v. Huie, 198 Ga.App. 49(4), 400 S.E.2d 349 (1990). That holding has been applied only in cases involving ......