From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Middleton

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jun 21, 1993
430 S.E.2d 748 (Ga. 1993)

Opinion

S93A0877.

DECIDED JUNE 21, 1993. RECONSIDERATION DENIED JULY 15, 1993.

Equity. Chatham Superior Court. Before Judge Head.

Miller, Simpson Tatum, John M. Tatum, for appellant.

Joseph B. Bergen, Frederick S. Bergen, for appellees.


This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction in a dispute among attorneys over client files. The trial court ordered Anderson, the plaintiff, to return all files in his possession of any disputed clients to the defendants, members of his former firm; ordered the defendants to make those files available to Anderson; ordered all parties to place all monies received in any of the disputed cases into a joint escrow account; and ordered all parties to inform the clients, should any inquire, that the question of who represents them is under consideration by the court. We construe this order not to interfere with any of the disputed clients' individual rights regarding their representation and files. Accordingly, because Anderson has shown no manifest abuse of discretion regarding the preliminary injunction, and none is apparent, the trial court's order is affirmed. Mark Smith Constr. Co. v. Fulton County, 248 Ga. 694, 695 (2) ( 285 S.E.2d 692) (1982).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.


DECIDED JUNE 21, 1993 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED JULY 15, 1993.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Middleton

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jun 21, 1993
430 S.E.2d 748 (Ga. 1993)
Case details for

Anderson v. Middleton

Case Details

Full title:ANDERSON v. MIDDLETON et al

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jun 21, 1993

Citations

430 S.E.2d 748 (Ga. 1993)
430 S.E.2d 748

Citing Cases

Courtesy Leasing, Inc. v. Christian

We cannot say that, in ordering appellants to pay those monies into its registry, the trial court abused its…

Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc.

We cannot say, therefore, that the issuance of the preliminary injunction constituted an abuse of discretion…