City of Rome v. Shadyside Memorial Gardens, Inc.

92 S.E.2d 734, 93 Ga. App. 759, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 854
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 12, 1956
Docket36108
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 92 S.E.2d 734 (City of Rome v. Shadyside Memorial Gardens, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Rome v. Shadyside Memorial Gardens, Inc., 92 S.E.2d 734, 93 Ga. App. 759, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 854 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

Quillian, J.

The construction of a zoning ordinance, under the facts, is a question of law for the courts, and in construing same the cardinal rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the lawmaking body. Zoning ordinances not only must be non-discriminatory and reasonable, but must be applied in a non-discriminatory and reasonable manner and are to be strictly construed in favor of the landowner. Moorehouse v. Hunt, 235 Wis. 358 (291 N. W. 745); Yokley Zoning Law and Practice, pp. 466, 467; Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Fox, 402 Ill. 617 (85 N. E. 2d 43); Monument Garage Corporation v. Levy, 266 N. Y. 339 (194 N. E. 848).

Under the agreed statement of facts in this case, it is crystal-clear that the intention of the governing authorities of the City of Rome, since the adoption of the Rome Zoning Ordinance in 1948 and up to the time of the filing of this action, was to permit cemeteries in R-l and R-1A zones. Such intention on the part of the Rome authorities was reaffirmed in 1954 by the action of the city authorities in classifying as R-1A a private cemetery which was at that time taken into the city. Certainly to deny defendant in error the right to operate its cemetery under the agreed facts in this case is unreasonable and discriminatory and ■without reasonable basis to be justified or made valid under the police power of the city.

Therefore, the trial court did not err in reversing the decision of the Board of Adjustments of the City of Rome upholding the action of the building inspector.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

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

Related

Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Scales
578 So. 2d 275 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1991)
Cobb County v. Peavy
286 S.E.2d 732 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
City of Smyrna v. Parks
242 S.E.2d 73 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Hinson v. Department of Transportation
217 S.E.2d 606 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Matthews v. Fayette County
210 S.E.2d 758 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
ERVIN COMPANY v. Brown
183 S.E.2d 743 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Tuggle v. Manning
159 S.E.2d 703 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)
Hopping v. Cobb County Fair Association, Inc.
152 S.E.2d 356 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 S.E.2d 734, 93 Ga. App. 759, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-rome-v-shadyside-memorial-gardens-inc-gactapp-1956.