Littrell v. Ghrist

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Littrell v. Ghrist

442 S.E.2d 306, 212 Ga. App. 465, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1216, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 308

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1994

DocketA94A0165

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 442 S.E.2d 306 (Littrell v. Ghrist) 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

Littrell v. Ghrist, 442 S.E.2d 306, 212 Ga. App. 465, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1216, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 308 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Blackburn, Judge.

Randy Littrell appeals the trial court’s order striking his answer and counterclaim and entering a default judgment on William [466]*466Ghrist’s complaint, and the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial.

Decided March 16, 1994. Robert F. Oliver, for appellant. English, Tunkle & Smith, Richard Tunkle, for appellee.

Ghrist filed the underlying action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly received as a result of Littrell’s alleged assault and battery upon his person. The trial court determined that defendant Littrell failed to comply with its order to file a pretrial information sheet form and failed to attend a calendar call as previously ordered. Upon this determination, the trial court ordered that Littrell’s answer and counterclaim be stricken and that a default judgment be entered in Ghrist’s favor. The trial court left open the amount of damages until a hearing on that issue.

Littrell contends that the trial court’s order striking his answer and counterclaim imposed overly harsh sanctions. We agree. The present case is controlled by our opinion in All South Mini Storage ‡‡2, Ltd. v. Woodcon Constr. Sues., 205 Ga. App. 393 (422 SE2d 282) (1992), in which we reversed the trial court’s order striking the defendant’s answer and dismissing its counterclaim for the defendant’s failure to appear at the pretrial conference. We noted that the trial court’s power to impose less drastic sanctions, such as contempt and attorney fees, was preferred as they allowed the presentation of the merits of the case. Id. at 394. See also Triple A Distrib. v. Carrier Reps, 193 Ga. App. 348 (2) (387 SE2d 624) (1989).

The sanction imposed for appellant’s failure to appear at a pretrial conference was too harsh. See Ambler v. Archer, 230 Ga. 281 (196 SE2d 858) (1973); Boatright v. First Nat. Bank, 166 Ga. App. 167 (303 SE2d 506) (1983).

Judgment reversed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.

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

Blackburn, Judge.

Randy Littrell appeals the trial court’s order striking his answer and counterclaim and entering a default judgment on William [466]*466Ghrist’s complaint, and the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial.

Decided March 16, 1994. Robert F. Oliver, for appellant. English, Tunkle & Smith, Richard Tunkle, for appellee.

Ghrist filed the underlying action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly received as a result of Littrell’s alleged assault and battery upon his person. The trial court determined that defendant Littrell failed to comply with its order to file a pretrial information sheet form and failed to attend a calendar call as previously ordered. Upon this determination, the trial court ordered that Littrell’s answer and counterclaim be stricken and that a default judgment be entered in Ghrist’s favor. The trial court left open the amount of damages until a hearing on that issue.

Littrell contends that the trial court’s order striking his answer and counterclaim imposed overly harsh sanctions. We agree. The present case is controlled by our opinion in All South Mini Storage ‡‡2, Ltd. v. Woodcon Constr. Sues., 205 Ga. App. 393 (422 SE2d 282) (1992), in which we reversed the trial court’s order striking the defendant’s answer and dismissing its counterclaim for the defendant’s failure to appear at the pretrial conference. We noted that the trial court’s power to impose less drastic sanctions, such as contempt and attorney fees, was preferred as they allowed the presentation of the merits of the case. Id. at 394. See also Triple A Distrib. v. Carrier Reps, 193 Ga. App. 348 (2) (387 SE2d 624) (1989).

The sanction imposed for appellant’s failure to appear at a pretrial conference was too harsh. See Ambler v. Archer, 230 Ga. 281 (196 SE2d 858) (1973); Boatright v. First Nat. Bank, 166 Ga. App. 167 (303 SE2d 506) (1983).

Judgment reversed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 S.E.2d 306, 212 Ga. App. 465, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1216, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littrell-v-ghrist-gactapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack