![]() The trial judge did not improperly rely on the "police power" doctrine.ģ. We see no error in either the trial judge's findings that the treatment plant is currently being operated and maintained as a nuisance and that the nuisance is continuing and abatable or in his determination that moratoria on additional sewage hookups and planned expansion of the plant's capacity would serve to help alleviate the present nuisance. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the trial court making final determinations and granting permanent injunctive relief after the interlocutory hearing.Ģ. This constituted acquiescence by the appellants. Both appellants and appellees then proceeded to present expert testimony and arguments on the merits of the case during the course of a two-day trial. The parties agreed during the course of the trial to address only the question of injunctive relief for nuisance to begin with, further agreeing that if the trial court granted the injunction and directed that the nuisance be abated, then the suit would not proceed to the damages issue. 469 (360 SE2d 595) (1987).Īppellees brought this suit against Gwinnett County for the dual purposes of obtaining injunctive relief from a nuisance and collecting money damages for inverse condemnation. "However, when there is notice of an interlocutory hearing, the court may determine the issues on their merits after the interlocutory hearing where there is no objection or where the parties have acquiesced." Ga. The general rule is that unless there is an order consolidating the trial on the merits with the hearing on the application for interlocutory injunction as provided in OCGA § 9-11-65 (a) (2), then the entry of permanent relief after an interlocutory hearing is improper. ![]() In its first enumeration of error, appellants contend that the trial judge erred by making final determinations of fact, deciding the merits of the equitable complaint, and granting permanent injunctive and permanent affirmative mandatory relief after an interlocutory hearing. After a two-day trial on the nuisance question, the trial judge enjoined operation of the plant as a nuisance required abatement of the complained-of odors, noise and flies enjoined the county from placing into operation planned expansion facilities at the plant enjoined sewer connections which would send further sewage to the plant established a schedule for abatement of the odors and noise and for the spraying of chemicals to prevent flies and insects and ordered that a monitor, auditor, or special master be appointed at county expense to supervise compliance with the order. ![]() Appellees sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief based on a claim of nuisance and damages due to inverse condemnation. Appellees, plaintiffs in the trial court, are citizens of Gwinnett County who reside in the immediate vicinity of the plant and who complain that the plant has destroyed the enjoyment of their homes due to excessive noxious odors, noise and insects. Toulme, amici curiae.Īppellants Gwinnett County and the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners ("Gwinnett County") seek reversal of an order enjoining the further operation of the Yellow River/Sweetwater Waste Water Treatment Plant as a nuisance and compelling affirmative cleanup procedures. Grubiak, Walter Edwin Sumner, Alston & Bird, G.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |