Merlino v. City of Atlanta

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that an action can constitute a trespass when it initiates solely within the boundaries of one property and affects another property
• holding that purchaser acquired land free of an easement when neither title search nor land survey nor other “ordinary diligence” revealed its existence
• holding that the city did not exercise dominion and control of a drainage pipe despite the fact that the city listed the pipe on its inventory map
• concluding that the defendant’s plugging a pipe despite knowing that such action could lead to flooding on the plaintiff’s property was “some evidence” from which the jury could find “bad faith”
• affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of City on plaintiff’s nuisance claim when there was no evidence that City “owned the pipe or exercised direct dominion and control over it,” i.e., there was “no evidence that the City ever owned, constructed, maintained, or installed the pipe”
• where bona fide controversy exists, attorney fees may only be awarded under the statute where the defendant has acted in bad faith

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).