Mitchell 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.

• holding that appellant’s prayer for abatement did not create a claim for damages or injunction upon the theory of nuisance because “[t]he sufficiency of a petition depends upon the facts pleaded, not the prayer for relief”
• holding that appellant’s prayer for abatement did not create a claim for damages or injunction upon the theory of nuisance because “[t]he sufficiency of a petition depends upon the facts pleaded, not the prayer for relief”
• holding that appellant’s prayer for abatement did not create a claim for damages or injunction upon the theory of nuisance because “[t]he sufficiency of a petition depends upon the facts pleaded, not the prayer for relief”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).