evolution doctrine in Georgia

2017The “historical saga” of the evolution of this test is summarized in Massey v. Butts County, 281 Ga. 244, 246-248 ( 637 SE2d 385 ) (2006), in which this Court noted that, although the test was originally created by statute and addressed the right to judicial review of the decisions of a board of adjustment and the decisions of a board of zoning appeals, it was later applied by this Court to rezoning decisions by local governing authorities.

2017The “historical saga” of the evolution of this test is summarized in Massey v. Butts County, 281 Ga. 244, 246-248 ( 637 SE2d 385 ) (2006), in which this Court noted that, although the test was originally created by statute and addressed the right to judicial review of the decisions of a board of adjustment and the decisions of a board of zoning appeals, it was later applied by this Court to rezoning decisions by local governing authorities.

2015See Sustainable Coast, 294 Ga. at 597-599 (examining history of sovereign immunity from its adoption in our common law in 1784, to its constitutionalization in 1974, and subsequent changes with the adoption of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 and further amendments in 1991).

2015See Sustainable Coast, 294 Ga. at 597 - 599 (examining history of sovereign immunity from its adoption in our common law in 1784, to its constitutionalization in 1974, and subsequent changes with the adoption of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 and further amendments in 1991).

2017The Foundation’s petition also relied on its rights under its lease, and a verified copy of it was filed in the proceeding by Lucas. 4 The “historical saga” of the evolution of this test is summarized in Massey v. Butts County, 281 Ga. 244, 246-248 ( 637 SE2d 385 ) (2006), in which this Court noted that, although the test was originally created by statute and addressed the right to judicial review of the decisions of a board of adjustment and the decisions of a board of zoning appeals, it was later applied by this Court to rezoning decisions by local governing authorities. 4 . . . a person cla

2017The Foundation’s petition also relied on its rights under its lease, and a verified copy of it was filed in the proceeding by Lucas. 4 The “historical saga” of the evolution of this test is summarized in Massey v. Butts County, 281 Ga. 244, 246-248 ( 637 SE2d 385 ) (2006), in which this Court noted that, although the test was originally created by statute and addressed the right to judicial review of the decisions of a board of adjustment and the decisions of a board of zoning appeals, it was later applied by this Court to rezoning decisions by local governing authorities. 4 . . . a person cla

2017See also Brand v. Wilson, 252 Ga. 416, 417 (1) ( 314 SE2d 192 ) (1984) (“[T]he gauge for standing . . . is simply this: that a citizen must have a substantial interest, which must suffer substantial damage by reason of the contested zoning change.”).

2017See also Brand v. Wilson, 252 Ga. 416, 417 (1) ( 314 SE2d 192 ) (1984) (“[T]he gauge for standing . . . is simply this: that a citizen must have a substantial interest, which must suffer substantial damage by reason of the contested zoning change.”).

2012See generally Mary F. Radford, Redfearn Wills and Administration in Georgia § 10:1 (7th ed. 2008 & Supp. 2011-2012) (discussing the evolution of the doctrine of year’s support in Georgia). 4 Holland v. Holland, 267 Ga. App. 251, 255 ( 599 SE2d 242 ) (2004) (punctuation omitted); see also Taylor v. Taylor, 288 Ga. App. 334, 337 (1) ( 654 SE2d 146 ) (2007) (“[A] claim for year’s support is not analogous to a tort claim where general damages can be awarded based on the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors.

2012See generally Mary F. Radford, Redfearn Wills and Administration in Georgia § 10:1 (7th ed. 2008 & Supp. 2011-2012) (discussing the evolution of the doctrine of year’s support in Georgia). 4 Holland v. Holland, 267 Ga. App. 251, 255 ( 599 SE2d 242 ) (2004) (punctuation omitted); see also Taylor v. Taylor, 288 Ga. App. 334, 337 (1) ( 654 SE2d 146 ) (2007) (“[A] claim for year’s support is not analogous to a tort claim where general damages can be awarded based on the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors.

2012See generally Mary F. Radford, Redfearn Wills and Administration in Georgia § 10:1 (7th ed. 2008 & Supp. 2011-2012) (discussing the evolution of the doctrine of year’s support in Georgia). 4 Holland v. Holland, 267 Ga. App. 251, 255 ( 599 SE2d 242 ) (2004) (punctuation omitted); see also Taylor v. Taylor, 288 Ga. App. 334, 337 (1) ( 654 SE2d 146 ) (2007) (“[A] claim for year’s support is not analogous to a tort claim where general damages can be awarded based on the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors.

2012See generally Mary F. Radford, Redfearn Wills and Administration in Georgia § 10:1 (7th ed. 2008 & Supp. 2011-2012) (discussing the evolution of the doctrine of year’s support in Georgia). 4 Holland v. Holland, 267 Ga. App. 251, 255 ( 599 SE2d 242 ) (2004) (punctuation omitted); see also Taylor v. Taylor, 288 Ga. App. 334, 337 (1) ( 654 SE2d 146 ) (2007) (“[A] claim for year’s support is not analogous to a tort claim where general damages can be awarded based on the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors.

1961For the evolution of this doctrine, see similar holdings in: Wilkins v. Wilkins, 146 Ga. 382 ( 91 SE 415 ); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 151 Ga. 520 ( 107 SE 490 ); Deaderick v. Deaderick, 182 Ga. 96, 97 ( 185 SE 89 ); and Fricks v. Fricks, 215 Ga. 137 ( 109 SE2d 596 ).