green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1915 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1915
1970
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leonard J. Accardo v. Gregory S. Brown, etc.
P’ship v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 820, 825 (1998) (stating that “where the lease term is perpetual or will outlast the useful life of the capital improvement for which the special assessment is levied, the lessee may be responsible for the assessment since he or she is the sole beneficiary of the improvement”); Penick v. Atkinson, 139 Ga. 649 , 77 S.E. 1055, 1057 (1913) (concluding that a perpetual lease is the substantial equivalent of a fee reserving rent)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ward v. Brown
P’ship v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 820, 825 (1998) (stating that a lessee is the sole beneficiary of a leasehold improvement when “the lease term is perpetual or will outlast the useful life of the capital improvement for which the special assessment is levied”); Penick v. Atkinson, 139 Ga. 649 , 77 S.E. 1055, 1057 (1913) (ruling that a perpetual lease, with power to re-enter for nonpayment of rent, is the equivalent of a fee reserving rent, and the property should be taxed to the lessee as owner). 2 We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument that section 196.199(7) (stating inter a…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Decatur County Building & Loan Ass'n v. Thigpen
See also Penick v. Atkinson, 139 Ga. 649 -656 ( 77 S. E. 1055 , 46 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Chapman Bros. v. Board of Review
See, also, Penick v. Atkinson, 139 Ga. 649 ( 77 S. E. 1055 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Beverly
v.
Gilmore
v.
Gilmore
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Apr 18, 1913.
Shipp & Kline, for plaintiff in error. W. F. Way, contra.
Lumpkin.
Published
Lumpkin, J.
1. There was no error in the rulings complained of in the grounds of the motion for a new trial. Nor are the grounds of such a character that a discussion of each of them individually would be profitable.
2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.
3. After a careful consideration of the evidence and the motion for a new trial, it does not so clearly appear that the ease was brought to this court for delay only as to require the award of damages on that ground.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.