United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Amberjack Ltd.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 41395,41395 |
| Citation | 253 Ga. 438,321 S.E.2d 736 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 118 Lab.Cas. P 56,536 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION et al. v. AMBERJACK LTD. et al. |
Harris Jacobs, Norman J. Slawsky, Jacobs & Langford, P.A., Atlanta, for United Food and Commercial Workers Union et al.
Lowell W. Olson, Costangy, Brooks & Smith, Atlanta, W. Earl McCall, Terry, Walters & Lippitt, Albany, for Amberjack Ltd., et al.
This is an appeal of the trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order. The issues are mootness and the strictness of the notice requirements of OCGA § 9-11-65. We find the case to be moot but because the error is capable of repetition and yet evades review, we review and reverse.
Appellees filed a suit seeking to enjoin the picketing of its premises by members of the appellant union. Upon doing so, appellees' counsel submitted to the trial court a proposed temporary restraining order without having given notice to the adverse party or showing by affidavit or otherwise why notice should not be given as required by OCGA § 9-11-65. Appellants filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order which was denied but the case proceeded to a hearing on the question of an interlocutory injunction which was granted.
Appellant argues this court should reverse the refusal to dissolve the temporary restraining order even though it has been superseded by the interlocutory injunction. In doing so, it points out the importance of the statutory notice requirements. Appellees contend the issue is moot. We agree with both contentions but will proceed to decide the issue recognizing that it is capable of repetition yet evades review. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). The language of the statute is unmistakable. It provides that a temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if it appears from affidavits or verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition or the applicant's counsel certifies in writing to the efforts which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the party's claim that notice should not be required.
An ex parte temporary restraining order is a harsh remedy and statutes authorizing such a remedy must be strictly construed. We follow this proposition and construe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
I.B., In Interest of
...advisory opinion is mandated in the case sub judice," citing Chastain, 255 Ga. 432, 339 S.E.2d 241. In United Food, etc., Union v. Amberjack, Ltd., 253 Ga. 438, 321 S.E.2d 736 (1984), the court agreed that the issue was moot but decided to "proceed to decide the issue recognizing that it is......
-
Jones v. Peach Trader Inc.
...Act's temporary restraining order provision permitted direct appeal. See, e.g., United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Amberjack Ltd. , 253 Ga. 438, 438, 321 S.E.2d 736 (1984) (an appeal from the denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order when coupled with the grant of ......
-
Pittman v. State
...defendants and a full hearing. See Stewart v. Brown, 253 Ga. 480, 481, 321 S.E.2d 738 (1984); United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Amberjack, Ltd., 253 Ga. 438, 438–439, 321 S.E.2d 736 (1984). In any event, we find no merit to the defendants' principal contention that the trial court e......
-
Daniels v. Price Communications Wireless
...of a compensable injury, his class action must nonetheless be considered as a controversy capable of repetition yet evading review. In United Food &c. Workers Union v. Amberjack, Ltd.,2 not a class action case, our Supreme Court, although finding that the issue appealed was moot, " proceed[......