140 S.E.2d 223 (Ga.App. 1965), 41012, Mays v. State

Citation: 140 S.E.2d 223, 110 Ga.App. 881

Party Name: E. Harold MAYS et al. v. STATE of Georgia.

Attorney: (b) It is not necessary that an intricate and detailed set of plans be incorporated in the resolution. What is required is that the resolution contain enough facts concerning the proposed project to afford a key from which the full picture of the project may be reasonably ascertained. A reference...

Case Date: Wednesday January 06, 1965

Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Linked as:

Document options

Printable page
Email this

Extract

140 S.E.2d 223 (Ga.App. 1965), 41012, Mays v. State

No longer available (Autolink)

See the full content of this document

This document cites

Georgia - 147 S.E. 513 (Ga. 1929), 6666, Western & A.R.R. v. Peterson
Georgia - 10 S.E.2d 190 (Ga. 1940), 13274, Howard v. City of Atlanta
Georgia - 122 S.E.2d 475 (Ga.App. 1961), 38945, City of Waycross v. Boatright
Georgia - 137 S.E.2d 82 (Ga.App. 1964), 40520, City Council of Augusta v. Irvin
Georgia - 56 S.E.2d 292 (Ga. 1949), 16785, Madison v. Montgomery

See all quotations