 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Outdoor Advertising Association of Georgia3/6/2000
In 1998, the General Assembly enacted OCGA § § 32-6-75.1 through 32-6-75.3, governing the issuance of permits for trimming vegetation and trees on Georgia rights-of-way to facilitate the viewing of outdoor advertising signs. The legislation replaced certain regulations implemented by the Department of Transportation in 1994 which were declared unconstitutional in Garden Club of Georgia v. Shackelford, 266 Ga. 24 (463 SE2d 470) (1995) ("Garden Club I"), as granting an illegal gratuity.
The Garden Club of Georgia, Inc. and several of its individual members ("Garden Club") filed the present complaint for declaratory and equitable relief against the Department of Transportation and its Commissioner, Wayne Shackelford ("DOT"). The complaint alleged that the new statutes, implementing rules, and a DOT created Manual of Guidance (Manual), violate the gratuities clause, exceed the rule making authority of the DOT under OCGA § 32-6-90, and contravene certain provisions of the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act, OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq. Outdoor Advertising Association of Georgia, Inc., and Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corporation ("Advertisers") were granted permission to intervene as party defendants.
During the pendency of the litigation, the superior court granted Garden Club's motion for an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the DOT from issuing tree cutting permits under the challenged law; it also denied a motion brought by the DOT to disqualify Garden Club's counsel, former Attorney General Michael Bowers, his co-counsel, Michael Trigg, and the law firm of Meadows, Ichter, and Trigg, P. C.
In Case No. S99A1567, Advertisers appeal from the grant of the interlocutory injunction. In Case No. S99X1568, the DOT cross-appeals from the denial of its disqualification motion. Finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we affirm both rulings.
Case No. S99A1567
1. "An interlocutory injunction `is a device to keep the parties in order to prevent one from hurting the other whilst their respective rights are under adjudication. . . . here must be some vital necessity for the injunction so that one of the parties will not be damaged and left without adequate remedy.' Price v. Empire Land Co., 218 Ga. 80, 85 (126 SE2d 626) (1962). The trial court has broad discretion to decide whether to grant or deny a request for an interlocutory injunction (OCGA § 9-5-8; Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Laboratories, 263 Ga. 615 (1) (437 SE2d 302) (1993)), and the appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's exercise of its discretion unless a manifest abuse of discretion is shown or there was no evidence on which to base the ruling. Kennedy v. W. M. Sheppard Lumber Co., 261 Ga. 145 (1) (401 SE2d 515) (1991)." Chambers v. Peach County, 268 Ga. 672, 673 (492 SE2d 191) (1997).
The superior court may issue an interlocutory injunction to maintain the status quo until a final hearing if, by balancing the relative equities of the parties, it would appear that the equities favor the party seeking the injunction. Lee v. Environmental Pest & Termite Control, 271 Ga. 371 (516 SE2d 76) (1999); Ledbetter Brothers v. Floyd County, 237 Ga. 22 (226 SE2d 730) (1976); Wilson v. Sermons, 236 Ga. 400 (223 SE2d 816) (1976).
The superior court weighed the equities in favor of the Garden Club, concluding that the DOT and intervenors would suffer no substantial harm from the granting of the injunction and that the greater harm would result from the cutting of trees. Finding no manifest abuse of discretion in that ruling, we affirm the grant of an interlocutory injunction enjoining the DOT from issuing tree cutting permits under the challenged law.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|