O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-764 (2019)

Award of attorneys’ fees

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-764, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1560, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Applicability of inevitable disclosure doctrine barring employment of

competitor’s former A.L.R.6th 537.

employee,

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1995–2014 · leading case: Tronitec, Inc. v. Shealy, 547 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tronitec, Inc. v. Shealy, 547 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “A01A0379 In the cross-appeal, Shealy, Black, Smith and FEI claim the trial court erred in (1) partially denying their motion for summary judgment on Tronitec’s counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) denying their motion for summary judgment on Tronitec’s…”
Brandenburg v. All-Fleet Refinishing, Inc., 555 S.E.2d 508 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 10-1-764 provides that if the court finds wilful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
White v. Arthur Enter., Inc., 464 S.E.2d 225 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 10-1-764. White and White’s Pharmacy appeal.”
Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “In the absence of a specification of the information Plaintiff claims as a "trade secret” under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-764(4), this "circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence” evaluation is difficult to apply.”
10-1-764(4): 1 case
Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2014). “In the absence of a specification of the information Plaintiff claims as a "trade secret” under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-764(4), this "circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence” evaluation is difficult to apply.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.