Cox v. Cambridge Square Towne Houses, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an apartment owner’s installation of a storm drain system in an apartment complex, which “greatly increased the flow of surface waters across [the adjacent landowner’s] land” constituted a nuisance
• holding that an apartment owner’s installation of a storm drain system in an apartment complex, which “greatly increased the flow of surface waters across [the adjacent landowner’s] land” constituted a nuisance
• noting that confusion “has long existed as to when a nuisance, which is by its nature continuing, is considered ‘permanent’”
• noting that confusion “has long existed as to when a nuisance, which is by its nature continuing, is considered permanent”
• adopting the Restatement (First) of Torts’ approach to determining when the statute of limitation has run on certain nuisance claims
• adopting § 930 as a consistent extension of previous Georgia case-law concerning recovery for future invasions to land

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).