Clein v. City of Atlanta

Supreme Court of Georgia

Clein v. City of Atlanta

124 S.E. 882, 159 Ga. 121, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 390

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 16, 1924·No. No. 4365·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Hill, J.

The ordinance set out in the statement of facts is not void for the reasons assigned, that it is an unlawful exercise of the police power and “an undue and unwarranted and unjustifiable regulation of and interference with the business of petitioners.” Nor is the classification [122] unfair and unreasonable as alleged. Shurman v. Atlanta, 148 &a. 4 (7), 13 (95 S. E. 698). The judge did not err in refusing the temporary injunction. Judgment affirmed.

No. 4365. October 16, 1924. All the Justices concur. Key, McClelland & McClelland, for plaintiffs. J. L. Mayson and J. M. Wood, for defendant.

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

Hill, J.

The ordinance set out in the statement of facts is not void for the reasons assigned, that it is an unlawful exercise of the police power and “an undue and unwarranted and unjustifiable regulation of and interference with the business of petitioners.” Nor is the classification [122] unfair and unreasonable as alleged. Shurman v. Atlanta, 148 &a. 4 (7), 13 (95 S. E. 698). The judge did not err in refusing the temporary injunction. Judgment affirmed.

No. 4365. October 16, 1924. All the Justices concur. Key, McClelland & McClelland, for plaintiffs. J. L. Mayson and J. M. Wood, for defendant.

Clein v. City of Atlanta, 124 S.E. 882, 159 Ga. 121, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 390 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

124 S.E. 882 (Clein v. City of Atlanta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related