Moreland v. Cheney

Supreme Court of Georgia

Moreland v. Cheney

479 S.E.2d 745, 267 Ga. 469, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 206, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 7

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1997

DocketS96A1932

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 479 S.E.2d 745 (Moreland v. Cheney) 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

Moreland v. Cheney, 479 S.E.2d 745, 267 Ga. 469, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 206, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 7 (Ga. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Sears, Justice.

The appellant, Earnest Moreland, is the operator of the Countdown Lounge, a nightclub in Evans County, Georgia. The trial court found that the Countdown Lounge constituted a public nuisance and permanently enjoined Moreland from operating it. On appeal, More-land’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in issuing a permanent injunction because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of a public nuisance. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

It has been held that

“[a] public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals.” OCGA § 41-1-2. “This language is not used in the sense that every person in the area must have been actually hurt or injured in order to show a public *470 nuisance. . . . It is sufficient if it injures those of the public who may actually come in contact with it. [Cits.] A public nuisance exists if the act complained of affects rights which are common to all within a particular area. [Cit.]” Atlanta Processing Co. v. Brown, 227 Ga. 203[, 211] (6b) (179 SE2d 752) (1971). 1

Decided January 21, 1997. David Roberson, Diane M. Morrell, for appellant. Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, J. Thomas Durden, Assistant District Attorney, for appellees.

There was evidence presented to the trial court of numerous, pervasive problems that were generated by, and occurred in and around, the lounge. These problems included the illegal sale of alcohol to adults and minors; the illegal dealing of drugs; the outbreak of numerous fights, including gunfights; and the creation of significant traffic congestion, loud music, and littering. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence presented to the trial court to authorize it to find that the Countdown Lounge constituted a nuisance. 2

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

1

Abee v. Stone Mtn. Mem. Assn., 169 Ga. App. 167, 171 (3) (312 SE2d 142) (1983).

2

See Atlanta Processing Co., 227 Ga. at 210-211.

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

Sears, Justice.

The appellant, Earnest Moreland, is the operator of the Countdown Lounge, a nightclub in Evans County, Georgia. The trial court found that the Countdown Lounge constituted a public nuisance and permanently enjoined Moreland from operating it. On appeal, More-land’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in issuing a permanent injunction because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of a public nuisance. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

It has been held that

“[a] public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals.” OCGA § 41-1-2. “This language is not used in the sense that every person in the area must have been actually hurt or injured in order to show a public *470 nuisance. . . . It is sufficient if it injures those of the public who may actually come in contact with it. [Cits.] A public nuisance exists if the act complained of affects rights which are common to all within a particular area. [Cit.]” Atlanta Processing Co. v. Brown, 227 Ga. 203[, 211] (6b) (179 SE2d 752) (1971). 1

Decided January 21, 1997. David Roberson, Diane M. Morrell, for appellant. Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, J. Thomas Durden, Assistant District Attorney, for appellees.

There was evidence presented to the trial court of numerous, pervasive problems that were generated by, and occurred in and around, the lounge. These problems included the illegal sale of alcohol to adults and minors; the illegal dealing of drugs; the outbreak of numerous fights, including gunfights; and the creation of significant traffic congestion, loud music, and littering. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence presented to the trial court to authorize it to find that the Countdown Lounge constituted a nuisance. 2

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

1

Abee v. Stone Mtn. Mem. Assn., 169 Ga. App. 167, 171 (3) (312 SE2d 142) (1983).

2

See Atlanta Processing Co., 227 Ga. at 210-211.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 S.E.2d 745, 267 Ga. 469, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 206, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreland-v-cheney-ga-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack