Williamson v. City of Tallapoosa

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, under an earlier version of the statute, a petitioner was required to traverse an insufficient answer, but the petitioner is no longer required to do so
• refusing to review appellants’ challenge to the constitutionality of city ordinance because “the language of the ordinance was not contained in the petition [for writ of certiorari to the superior court] or otherwise placed in the record”
• because relevant ordinance did not appear in petition or elsewhere in record, superior court could not review petitioner’s allegation that evidence did not authorize his conviction in recorder’s court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).