Brown v. Penland Construction Company
Georgia Supreme Court
641 S.E.2d 522 (2007)

- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
After negotiations with a local high school’s baseball coach, Michael Brown (defendant), Penland Construction Company (the builder) (plaintiff) undertook a construction project to build indoor batting cages for a high school. After the batting cages were completed, the high school’s county board of education refused to pay for the batting cages. The builder sued the board of education, the school district, and the school’s boosters club (collectively, the school organizations) (defendants) and Brown under the doctrine of quantum meruit in state trial court. Brown and the school organizations filed motions for directed verdicts. The trial court denied the motions. A jury awarded the builder $150,000, finding Brown and the school organizations jointly and severally liable under the theory of quantum meruit. The state appellate court affirmed. Brown asked the Georgia Supreme Court to reconsider his motion for a directed verdict, arguing the principle of sovereign immunity insulated him from the builder’s claims. Brown argued that any claims of quantum meruit against him personally should fail because he was not unjustly enriched by the batting cages. Brown argued he obtained no special benefit from the facility outside of his role as a coach. Brown also argued he did not own the land on which the batting cages were constructed. Brown further argued that because he was a school employee, he was not personally liable for any claims against the school. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider Brown’s motion for a directed verdict.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Melton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.