Beck v. Glaze

Supreme Court of Georgia

Beck v. Glaze

198 S.E.2d 283, 230 Ga. 593, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 995

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 10, 1973

Docket27856

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 S.E.2d 283 (Beck v. Glaze) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beck v. Glaze, 198 S.E.2d 283, 230 Ga. 593, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 995 (Ga. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Mobley, Chief Justice.

Burl O. Beck brought an action for damages and injunction against Herman Glaze and Buddy Coker, alleging that they are operating a landfill business on property adjacent to the plaintiffs land, and that the large trucks bringing rubbish to dump in this fill have stirred up dust on the unpaved road in front of the plaintiffs house, have made loud and unnecessary noises, have dropped debris on the road in front of the plaintiffs house, and performed other acts, all of which have injured and damaged the plaintiff and his family. After a hearing on the question of the grant of interlocutory injunction, it was denied by the trial judge, and the appeal is from that judgment.

The defendants were licensed by the governing authority of DeKalb County to operate a sanitary landfill. The only question for the trial judge was whether the evidence as to the manner of the operation of the landfill required the grant of an interlocutory injunction until the plaintiffs case for damages and permanent injunction could be heard by a jury.

We have examined the evidence, and are of the opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mobley, Chief Justice.

Burl O. Beck brought an action for damages and injunction against Herman Glaze and Buddy Coker, alleging that they are operating a landfill business on property adjacent to the plaintiffs land, and that the large trucks bringing rubbish to dump in this fill have stirred up dust on the unpaved road in front of the plaintiffs house, have made loud and unnecessary noises, have dropped debris on the road in front of the plaintiffs house, and performed other acts, all of which have injured and damaged the plaintiff and his family. After a hearing on the question of the grant of interlocutory injunction, it was denied by the trial judge, and the appeal is from that judgment.

The defendants were licensed by the governing authority of DeKalb County to operate a sanitary landfill. The only question for the trial judge was whether the evidence as to the manner of the operation of the landfill required the grant of an interlocutory injunction until the plaintiffs case for damages and permanent injunction could be heard by a jury.

We have examined the evidence, and are of the opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E.2d 283, 230 Ga. 593, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-glaze-ga-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack