# Rolleston v. Huite

> Court of Appeals of Georgia · November 28, 1990 · 198 Ga. App. 49

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560647

## Case

- **Full name:** ROLLESTON v. HUIE Et Al. (Two Cases)
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Georgia
- **Decided:** November 28, 1990
- **Citations:** 198 Ga. App. 49; 400 S.E.2d 349; 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 1535
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sognier
- **Judges:** Carley, McMurray, Sognier
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by Sewell v. Cancel, 295 Ga. 235 (2014).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560647

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that there is no tort remedy available under OCGA § 16-8-16 for the allegedly unlawful attempt to disseminate information tending to impair appellant’s business because that statute does not create a cause of action in tort in favor of the plaintiff
- holding that “it is clear that the mere filing of a lawsuit is not the type of humiliating, insulting or terrifying conduct which will give rise to a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress”
- holding that there is no tort remedy available under O.C.G.A. § 16-8-16 for the allegedly unlawful attempt to disseminate information tending to impair appellant’s business
- finding O.C.G.A. §§ 16-8-2 and 16-8-3 are criminal statutes that do not provide for any private cause of action and dismissing claims under these statutes

## Opinion text

Sognier, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Divisions 1 through 4, but concur specially with regard to Division 5 and its discussion of the attorney fees award.
The trial court based its award of attorney fees on both paragraphs (a) and (b) of OCGA § 9-15-14. As I discussed more fully in my concurring opinion in Lane v. K-Mart Corp., 190 Ga. App. 113, 115-116 ( 378 SE2d 136 ) (1989), paragraph (a) compels the award of attorney fees only when a claim has merit neither in fact nor in law. As a result, notwithstanding the “any evidence” standard of review enunciated in Haggard v. Bd. of Regents &c. of Ga., 257 Ga. 524, 527 (4) (c) ( 360 SE2d 566 ) (1987), when considering an appeal from an award of attorney fees made under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a), we must determine whether the claim asserted below either had some factual merit or presented a justiciable issue of law. In the case at bar, we effectively engaged in that analysis in our discussion in Division 2 of the merits of the underlying claim. Had we found the claim asserted by appellant constituted a “good faith attempt to establish a new theory of law” as described in OCGA § 9-15-14 (c), the award of attorney fees could not be sustained. Since I agree that the claim advanced below did not meet that standard, I concur in the judgment in Division 5.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560647. Public record. Not legal advice.