Clinton Nalley v. Carroll County, Georgia

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clinton Nalley v. Carroll County, Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 2025

DocketA26D0202

StatusPublished

This text of Clinton Nalley v. Carroll County, Georgia (Clinton Nalley v. Carroll County, Georgia) 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

Clinton Nalley v. Carroll County, Georgia, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ December 09, 2025 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A26D0202. CLINTON NALLEY et al v. CARROLL COUNTY, GEORGIA. In this zoning case, plaintiffs Clinton Nalley, Amberly P. Nalley, The Barn at Nalley Properties, LLC, and Nalley Properties, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) seek discretionary review of a superior court order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Carroll County (the “County”). The order effectively denied Plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that (i) their 2019 conditional use permit, which allowed them to use part of their property as a special event venue, also applied to new property they purchased in 2021 and (ii) the Nalleys had vested rights to use part of the new property as a special event facility. Plaintiffs challenge the superior court’s ruling, arguing that it implicitly denied their vested rights argument. The Supreme Court of Georgia “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657, 657 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996) (citing Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II(1)). Because the superior court rejected Plaintiffs’ challenge to the County ordinance and zoning decision, and Plaintiffs’ challenge was based on the constitutional doctrine of vested rights, it appears that jurisdiction over this application may lie in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, Inc., 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this application is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/09/2025 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ December 09, 2025 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A26D0202. CLINTON NALLEY et al v. CARROLL COUNTY, GEORGIA. In this zoning case, plaintiffs Clinton Nalley, Amberly P. Nalley, The Barn at Nalley Properties, LLC, and Nalley Properties, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) seek discretionary review of a superior court order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Carroll County (the “County”). The order effectively denied Plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that (i) their 2019 conditional use permit, which allowed them to use part of their property as a special event venue, also applied to new property they purchased in 2021 and (ii) the Nalleys had vested rights to use part of the new property as a special event facility. Plaintiffs challenge the superior court’s ruling, arguing that it implicitly denied their vested rights argument. The Supreme Court of Georgia “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657, 657 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996) (citing Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II(1)). Because the superior court rejected Plaintiffs’ challenge to the County ordinance and zoning decision, and Plaintiffs’ challenge was based on the constitutional doctrine of vested rights, it appears that jurisdiction over this application may lie in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, Inc., 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this application is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/09/2025 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clinton Nalley v. Carroll County, Georgia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clinton-nalley-v-carroll-county-georgia-gactapp-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack