Blanton v. Blanton

8 Citing cases

  1. Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors v. Davenport

    261 Ga. 853 (Ga. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    In Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors v. Davenport, 261 Ga. 853 (413 S.E.2d 195) (1992), the Supreme Court limited the scope of its prior decision in Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622 (385 S.E.2d 672) (1989) and reversed our judgment in this case, 199 Ga. App. 33 (403 S.E.2d 850) (1991), which relied on the interpretation of OCGA § 9-11-45 set forth in Blanton.

    When appellant served appellee with notice of his deposition to be taken in Laurens County, appellee sought and received a protective order under OCGA § 9-11-26 (c), after the trial court determined that it could not compel an out-of-state resident to come to Georgia to give a deposition. Based on this court's decision in Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622 ( 385 S.E.2d 672) (1989), the Court of Appeals reluctantly affirmed the decision of the trial court. Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors v. Davenport, 199 Ga. App. 33 ( 403 S.E.2d 850) (1991).

  2. Warehouse Home Furnishings v. Davenport

    199 Ga. App. 33 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    OCGA § 9-11-45 (b). Although it is true, as argued by appellant, that in Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622 ( 385 S.E.2d 672) (1989), the Supreme Court refused to compel an out of state defendant to attend a deposition, the Supreme Court held there that OCGA § 9-11-45 (b) means exactly what it says, and, unlike the narrower federal rule, is directed and "intended to protect all those who give depositions." Id. at 623.

  3. Heard v. Ruef

    A18A0186 (Ga. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2018)

    We find under these circumstances that the trial court had jurisdiction to compel Heard to attend a postjudgment deposition noticed by Rueff in connection with enforcement of that judgment. Heard cites to an earlier decision by our Supreme Court in Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622 (385 SE2d 672) (1989), to support his argument that he should not be compelled to return to Georgia to be deposed. In that case, the plaintiff filed a divorce action in Georgia against a Texas resident, whom he alleged was his common-law wife and sought an order compelling her to come to Georgia for a deposition.

  4. Heard v. Ruef

    A18A0186 (Ga. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2018)

    We find under these circumstances that the trial court had jurisdiction to compel Heard to attend a postjudgment deposition noticed by Ruef in connection with enforcement of that judgment. Heard cites to an earlier decision by our Supreme Court in Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622 (385 SE2d 672) (1989), to support his argument that he should not be compelled to return to Georgia to be deposed. In that case, the plaintiff filed a divorce action in Georgia against a Texas resident, whom he alleged was his common-law wife and sought an order compelling her to come to Georgia for a deposition.

  5. Heard v. Ruef

    347 Ga. App. 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    We find under these circumstances that the trial court had jurisdiction to compel Heard to attend a postjudgment deposition noticed by Ruef in connection with enforcement of that judgment. Heard cites to an earlier decision by our Supreme Court in Blanton v. Blanton , 259 Ga. 622, 385 S.E.2d 672 (1989), to support his argument that he should not be compelled to return to Georgia to be deposed. In that case, the plaintiff filed a divorce action in Georgia against a Texas resident, whom he alleged was his common-law wife and sought an order compelling her to come to Georgia for a deposition.

  6. Gen. Motors v. Buchanan

    313 Ga. 811 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 12 times   5 Legal Analyses

    And although we acknowledge as a general principle that we look to federal case law interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as persuasive authority, see Bowden , 297 Ga. at 291 n.5, 773 S.E.2d 692, where the language of a Georgia statute deviates from the federal rules, the persuasive value of the authority interpreting and applying the federal rules is diminished. See, e.g., Blanton v. Blanton , 259 Ga. 622, 623 (1), 385 S.E.2d 672 (1989) (noting textual differences between Federal Rule 45 and OCGA § 9-11-45 pertaining to subpoenas and declining to follow the federal approach). Accordingly, we decline to adopt any version of the apex doctrine that shifts the burden to the party seeking discovery.

  7. Ridley v. Grandison

    389 S.E.2d 746 (Ga. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    The man claimed a common law marriage, filed for divorce, and sought custody of the child. Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622 ( 385 S.E.2d 672) (1989). (4) A man and woman married, produced a child, and separated. A second woman lived with the man and became pregnant.

  8. Warehouse Home Furnishings Dist., Inc. v. Davenport

    417 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)

    SOGNIER, Chief Judge. In Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors v. Davenport, 261 Ga. 853 ( 413 S.E.2d 195) (1992), the Supreme Court limited the scope of its prior decision in Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622 ( 385 S.E.2d 672) (1989) and reversed our judgment in this case, 199 Ga. App. 33 ( 403 S.E.2d 850) (1991), which relied on the interpretation of OCGA § 9-11-45 set forth in Blanton. Accordingly, our judgment in this case is vacated and the Supreme Court's judgment is made the judgment of this Court.