Rife v. Corbett

455 S.E.2d 581, 264 Ga. 871
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 6, 1995
DocketS95A0057
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 455 S.E.2d 581 (Rife v. Corbett) 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
Rife v. Corbett, 455 S.E.2d 581, 264 Ga. 871 (Ga. 1995).

Opinion

Thompson, Justice.

Oscar Carter conveyed adjoining tracts of land to his daughters and sons-in-law, the Corbetts and the Rifes. He granted the Corbetts “privileges of ingress and egress” across the property which he conveyed to the Rifes. As the years went by, the Corbetts used a roadbed along the Rifes’ northernmost border to access their land. When the Rifes began planting shrubs and flowers alongside the roadbed, the Corbetts filed a petition in probate court to remove the obstructions. The probate court ordered the Rifes to remove any obstructions and the Rifes appealed to the superior court. Two weeks later, the Rifes put cables, crossties and creosote posts across the roadbed and the Corbetts filed suit in superior court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Following a hearing upon the Corbetts’ request for interlocutory injunction, the superior court found that the Corbetts would suffer immediate and irreparable harm unless it granted temporary injunctive relief. Accordingly, defendants were enjoined from placing or maintaining any obstructions in the roadbed until further order of the court. The Rifes appeal and 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).

Ga. Dept. of Agriculture v. Ga. Crown Distributing Co., 262 Ga. 761 (425 SE2d 876) (1993).

We find no abuse of discretion in the superior court’s grant of the interlocutory injunction. The evidence was sufficient to support the ruling.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *872 Decided February 6, 1995. Closson & Bass, John W. McClure, for appellants. Barham & Dover, William W. Broadfoot III, for appellees.

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

Related

Higginbotham v. Knight
719 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Focus Entertainment International, Inc. v. Partridge Greene, Inc.
558 S.E.2d 440 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Besser v. Rule
510 S.E.2d 530 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999)
Ebon Foundation, Inc. v. Oatman
498 S.E.2d 728 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1998)
POE & BROWN OF GEORGIA, INC. v. Gill
492 S.E.2d 864 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Bailey v. Buck
467 S.E.2d 554 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
455 S.E.2d 581, 264 Ga. 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rife-v-corbett-ga-1995.