Langley v. Shumate

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Langley v. Shumate

294 S.E.2d 300, 163 Ga. App. 254, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2457

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1982

Docket63814

StatusPublished

This text of 294 S.E.2d 300 (Langley v. Shumate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Langley v. Shumate, 294 S.E.2d 300, 163 Ga. App. 254, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2457 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Presiding Judge.

Appellant brought a medical malpractice action against appellee. For the purpose of preserving testimony for use at trial, appellant began a deposition of her attending physician. During the deposition, the physician announced that he had to leave and promptly did so. Because the physician had not testified as appellant expected and wanted, appellant decided not to continue the deposition. One year later, appellee moved the trial court for an order compelling appellant to continue the deposition at appellant’s expense so that appellee could cross-examine the physician. Appellant opposed the motion, arguing that since she had no intention of using any testimony by the doctor at trial, she should not be forced to bear the expense of developing testimony for appellee’s use. The trial court granted appellee’s motion and we granted appellant’s application for an interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s action.

After applying to the facts of this case the decision of this court in Acres v. King, 109 Ga. App. 571 (3) (136 SE2d 510), we conclude that the trial court’s order is correct. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Presiding Judge.

Appellant brought a medical malpractice action against appellee. For the purpose of preserving testimony for use at trial, appellant began a deposition of her attending physician. During the deposition, the physician announced that he had to leave and promptly did so. Because the physician had not testified as appellant expected and wanted, appellant decided not to continue the deposition. One year later, appellee moved the trial court for an order compelling appellant to continue the deposition at appellant’s expense so that appellee could cross-examine the physician. Appellant opposed the motion, arguing that since she had no intention of using any testimony by the doctor at trial, she should not be forced to bear the expense of developing testimony for appellee’s use. The trial court granted appellee’s motion and we granted appellant’s application for an interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s action.

After applying to the facts of this case the decision of this court in Acres v. King, 109 Ga. App. 571 (3) (136 SE2d 510), we conclude that the trial court’s order is correct. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 S.E.2d 300, 163 Ga. App. 254, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langley-v-shumate-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack