Court Opinion

ID: 9848675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:25:02.291107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:36.810010
License: Public Domain

Duckworth, Chief Justice,
dissenting. Briefly stated, I can not concur in the rulings made in divisions 2 and 3 and the corresponding headnotes of the opinion, and the judgment of affirmance, because I regard it utterly unsound to rule as the majority does that, despite the fact that the zoning ordinance was perfectly legal and valid when adopted, it has now, many years thereafter, become invalid when applied to the lands in controversy. If a law is valid when enacted, it remains valid until changed or repealed by the legislative department, which is a function beyond the scope of judicial power. The majority opinion puts the judicial department into the business of legislating and zoning property. Justices Candler and Hawkins concur in this dissent.