Slaven v. City of Buford

355 S.E.2d 663, 257 Ga. 100, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 748
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 19, 1987
Docket44193
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 355 S.E.2d 663 (Slaven v. City of Buford) 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
Slaven v. City of Buford, 355 S.E.2d 663, 257 Ga. 100, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 748 (Ga. 1987).

Opinion

Hunt, Justice.

Barry Slaven and Douglas Bruce, owners of a trailer park in Buford, Georgia, appeal from the denial of their complaint for injunctive relief against the City of Buford by which they sought to prevent the city from interfering with the continued operation of the trailer park.

The exercise of discretion by the trial court in granting or denying an injunction will be not interfered with absent manifest abuse. Zant v. Dick, 249 Ga. 799 (294 SE2d 508) (1982); Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Statham, 243 Ga. 448, 449 (254 SE2d 833) (1979); OCGA § 9-5-8. However, the trial court’s discretion is limited to cases in which there is a conflict in the evidence. Zant v. Dick, supra; Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Statham, supra. Here, there was no conflict in the evidence regarding the fact that the entire trailer park had been operated continuously for the rental of mobile homes, 1 and thus constitutes a non-conforming use which is specifically permitted to continue under the city’s zoning ordinances. Accordingly, the trial court erred in holding that some of the sites had been converted to single-family dwellings and in denying the relief sought.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., not participating.
1

Section 202 of the Buford Zoning Ordinance defines a mobile home as a “single-family dwelling designed for transportation after fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels or on a flatbed or other trailers, and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, locations on jacks or permanent foundations, connections to utilities and the like.” (Emphasis supplied.)

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

Related

Gibson v. Huffman
540 S.E.2d 222 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Baumann v. Snider
532 S.E.2d 468 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Teachers' Retirement System v. Forehand
506 S.E.2d 913 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Caring Hands, Inc. v. Department of Human Resources
449 S.E.2d 354 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Powell v. Studstill
441 S.E.2d 52 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
Benton v. Patel
362 S.E.2d 217 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
355 S.E.2d 663, 257 Ga. 100, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slaven-v-city-of-buford-ga-1987.