Jansen-Nichols v. Colonial Pipeline Company, 295 Ga. 786

Colonial Pipeline operates an underground petroleum pipeline near Paige Jansen-Nichols’s DeKalb County home and twice used helicopters in May–June 2013 to inspect suspected leaks.
Jansen-Nichols alleges those helicopter flights were too low and sued Colonial for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and negligence per se, seeking damages and a permanent injunction.
She additionally moved for an interlocutory (pretrial) injunction to bar low helicopter overflights while the suit is pending.
After two evidentiary hearings, the trial court denied the interlocutory injunction; Jansen-Nichols appealed the denial.
The trial court found conflicting evidence: Colonial does not routinely fly low, actual flight altitudes were disputed, and low overflights can be necessary to inspect a potentially compromised pipeline that may threaten public safety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory injunction should bar low helicopter overflights	Jansen-Nichols argued low flights constitute trespass, nuisance, negligence, and warrant immediate injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm	Colonial argued flights were necessary, not routine, altitudes disputed, and inspections can protect public safety	Denied: trial court acted within discretion; injunction not warranted on the four-factor test
Whether denial of injunction amounts to license to commit torts	Jansen-Nichols contended denial effectively permits unlawful overflights and tortious conduct	Colonial and court: denial only withholds equitable relief; it does not immunize unlawful conduct or bar recovery of damages	Held: denial is not a license; tort claims remain viable despite injunction denial
Whether the four preliminary-injunction factors were met	Jansen-Nichols asserted irreparable injury, likelihood of success, balance of harms, and public interest support injunction	Colonial disputed those elements and emphasized public safety and necessity	Held: plaintiff failed to prove any factor; trial court properly weighed conflicting evidence
Whether trial court misapplied nuisance/public-vs-private or preemption doctrines	Jansen-Nichols raised errors about public/private nuisance distinction and federal preemption	Trial court did not rely on those doctrines in denying relief	Held: claims of those errors are without merit and need no further discussion

Holton v. Physician Oncology Svcs., 292 Ga. 864 (2013) (trial court discretion in granting interlocutory injunctions)
SRB Inv. Svcs. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1 (interlocutory injunction factors and extraordinary-nature reminder)
Cherokee County v. City of Holly Springs, 284 Ga. 298 (conflicting evidence precludes finding abuse of discretion regarding injunctions)
Treadwell v. Investment Franchises, 273 Ga. 517 (same point on conflicting evidence and trial court discretion)