Background - Peach Trader sued Jeffery and Sharon Jones alleging Mr. Jones embezzled over $1 million and sought a temporary restraining order; an interlocutory injunction issued after hearing (Jan 15, 2016). - The Joneses did not appeal the January 15 injunction but later moved to dissolve it; hearings led to a modification (Sept 9, 2016) removing restrictions on at least one account. - The Joneses sought a certificate of immediate review (denied), then filed a timely notice of direct appeal from the Sept 9 order; the trial court dismissed that notice as unauthorized. - The Joneses appealed the dismissal; the trial court dismissed that appeal as well; the Joneses sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court. - The Supreme Court vacated the trial court orders dismissing the notices of appeal (trial court exceeded its authority) but held that the Sept 9 order (modifying an interlocutory injunction) was not directly appealable and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether a trial court may dismiss a notice of appeal by concluding the underlying order is not appealable | Jones: trial court dismissal was permissible | Peach Trader: trial court lacked authority; dismissal is for appellate courts | Held: Trial courts lack authority to dismiss appeals for appealability; only appellate courts may dismiss under OCGA §5-6-48 (vacated trial dismissal orders) | | Whether an order modifying an interlocutory injunction is directly appealable under OCGA §5-6-34(a)(4) | Jones: modification is logically within "granting or refusing" and thus directly appealable | Peach Trader: statute limits direct appeals to orders granting/refusing applications; modifications are interlocutory and require interlocutory review procedures | Held: Modification of an interlocutory injunction is not directly appealable under §5-6-34(a)(4); such relief is subject to interlocutory review procedures (OCGA §5-6-34(b)) (appeal dismissed) | | Whether alternative doctrines/equitable exceptions allow immediate review of certain modifications | Jones: some modifications may be tantamount to grant/denial and thus reviewable | Peach Trader: narrow exceptions not applicable here | Held: Court declined to extend a broad exception; narrow precedents (if any) not invoked in this case — parties should seek certificate of immediate review when appropriate | ### Key Cases Cited Rollins v. Rollins, 300 Ga. 485 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (appellate court alone determines sufficiency of notices of appeal) Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (attempts to appeal interlocutory orders without required procedures are ineffective) Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (appellate court is sole authority to determine sufficiency of notice of appeal) Jones v. Singleton, 253 Ga. 41 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (earlier case upholding trial-court dismissal of appeals from interlocutory orders; disapproved here to extent inconsistent) * Moore v. Selman, 219 Ga. 865 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (recognizing narrow circumstances where an order dissolving a temporary injunction may be reviewable as tantamount to denial)