Georgia Department of Agriculture v. Georgia Crown Distributing Company

Supreme Court of Georgia

Georgia Department of Agriculture v. Georgia Crown Distributing Company

425 S.E.2d 876, 262 Ga. 761, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 582, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 249

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1993

DocketS93A0178

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 425 S.E.2d 876 (Georgia Department of Agriculture v. Georgia Crown Distributing Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Georgia Department of Agriculture v. Georgia Crown Distributing Company, 425 S.E.2d 876, 262 Ga. 761, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 582, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 249 (Ga. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Fletcher, Justice.

The State Department of Agriculture appeals from the grant of an interlocutory injunction enjoining the state from interfering with the marketing and advertising of Poland Spring Corporation’s bottled spring water. We affirm.

A trial court has the discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo and balance the conveniences of the parties pending final adjudication. Jackson v. Delk, 257 Ga. 541, 544 (361 SE2d 370) (1987). This court will not disturb that discretion unless it is abused or there is no evidence to support the ruling. Kennedy v. W. M. Sheppard Lumber Co., 261 Ga. 145, 146 (401 SE2d 515) (1991).

The trial court granted the injunction based on its findings that Poland Spring would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were denied, Poland Spring’s water had been sold in the state for ten years, and the state had granted the company a thirty-day extension to continue marketing the product while trying to prove compliance with *762 state regulations. In addition, Poland Spring presented the affidavits of experts who stated that its product satisfies the state’s regulations for spring water and that proposed studies will show the water satisfies the state’s criteria. Based on the trial court’s findings and the evidence presented, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the interlocutory injunction.

Decided February 18, 1993. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Robert S. Bomar, Sr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alan Gantzhorn, Assistant Attorney General, Kevin Wangerin, Staff Attorney, for appellant. Chilivis & Grindler, Nicholas P. Chilivis, John K. Larkins, Jr., Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, James E. Humes II, John M. Tanzine III, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Hunt, P. J., Benham, Sears-Collins, Hun-stein, JJ., and Judge George H. Bryant concur; Clarke, C. J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fletcher, Justice.

The State Department of Agriculture appeals from the grant of an interlocutory injunction enjoining the state from interfering with the marketing and advertising of Poland Spring Corporation’s bottled spring water. We affirm.

A trial court has the discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo and balance the conveniences of the parties pending final adjudication. Jackson v. Delk, 257 Ga. 541, 544 (361 SE2d 370) (1987). This court will not disturb that discretion unless it is abused or there is no evidence to support the ruling. Kennedy v. W. M. Sheppard Lumber Co., 261 Ga. 145, 146 (401 SE2d 515) (1991).

The trial court granted the injunction based on its findings that Poland Spring would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were denied, Poland Spring’s water had been sold in the state for ten years, and the state had granted the company a thirty-day extension to continue marketing the product while trying to prove compliance with *762 state regulations. In addition, Poland Spring presented the affidavits of experts who stated that its product satisfies the state’s regulations for spring water and that proposed studies will show the water satisfies the state’s criteria. Based on the trial court’s findings and the evidence presented, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the interlocutory injunction.

Decided February 18, 1993. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Robert S. Bomar, Sr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alan Gantzhorn, Assistant Attorney General, Kevin Wangerin, Staff Attorney, for appellant. Chilivis & Grindler, Nicholas P. Chilivis, John K. Larkins, Jr., Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, James E. Humes II, John M. Tanzine III, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Hunt, P. J., Benham, Sears-Collins, Hun-stein, JJ., and Judge George H. Bryant concur; Clarke, C. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 S.E.2d 876, 262 Ga. 761, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 582, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-department-of-agriculture-v-georgia-crown-distributing-company-ga-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack