Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Kesler

329 S.E.2d 133, 254 Ga. 360, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 702
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 10, 1985
Docket41990
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 329 S.E.2d 133 (Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Kesler) 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
Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Kesler, 329 S.E.2d 133, 254 Ga. 360, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 702 (Ga. 1985).

Opinion

Per curiam.

In this suit for injunctive relief, after an interlocutory hearing on November 20, 1984, the trial court ordered the defendants, Pizza Hut and one of its employees, temporarily enjoined from continuing to concentrate and divert surface water onto the plaintiffs’ lots. In addition, in the same order, prepared by plaintiffs’ counsel, the court found the defendants to be in wilful contempt of court, and “[a]s punishment for said contempt, the court hereby imposes a fine on defendant, Pizza Hut of America, in the sum of $20.00 per day ($10.00 per day per plaintiff), commencing February 18, 1985, and a like amount for each day thereafter so long as the conditions continue to exist on defendants’ property which cause the accumulated flow of water from defendants’ property onto the property of the plaintiffs.” It is the contempt portion of the temporary injunction which Pizza Hut enumerates as error.

1. The grant of a temporary injunction is appealable. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4). Appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal, on the ground that the trial court’s order is not final, is overruled.

2. A court is without power to issue a temporary injunction and in that same order (there having been no temporary restraining order preceding it) find the party thereby enjoined to be in wilful contempt of such temporary injunction. Due process must be preserved at the expense of judicial economy. So much of the temporary injunction as finds the defendants to be in wilful contempt of that injunction and imposes a fine thereon is reversed.

Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Jones v. Peach Trader Inc.
807 S.E.2d 840 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017)
Norred v. Moore
588 S.E.2d 301 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Medical Clinic, Inc.
470 S.E.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
West 80 Investors v. Chequers Investment Associates
448 S.E.2d 735 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Cincinnati Insurance v. Reybitz
421 S.E.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 S.E.2d 133, 254 Ga. 360, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pizza-hut-of-america-inc-v-kesler-ga-1985.