![]() ![]() 375, 380(5), 490 S.E.2d 68 (1997).įurther, the trial court noted in its order that “t the hearing each side had an opportunity to present evidence and argument to the court. And the trial court's findings of fact in a bond validation proceeding will not be set aside if there is any evidence to support it.” (Citations omitted.) Copeland v. “Whether the County's bond proposal was sound, reasonable, and feasible is a determination of fact made by the trial court. 95, 96, 483 S.E.2d 350 (1997).īasically, Hay contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence Newton County presented at a public hearing established that the bond issue was sound, feasible, and reasonable. “Our requirements as to the form of appellate briefs were created, not to provide an obstacle, but to aid parties in presenting their arguments in a manner most likely to be fully and efficiently comprehended by this Court.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bennett v. This presentation violates Court of Appeals Rule 25(a), (c)(3). Hay's brief includes no statement of facts or proceedings, and utterly fails to cite to the record to support his numerous factual allegations. Thus, we affirm the trial court's order validating the bonds issued on behalf of Newton County, Newton County Water and Sewerage Authority, the City of Covington, and the Walton County Water and Sewerage Authority. 1 He raises 14 enumerations of error, none of which is meritorious. #Newton county water service pro#Hay III, pro se, appeals the trial court's order validating the Newton County Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2004. ![]() ![]() Craig, King & Spalding, Atlanta, for appellees. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |