Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 18-1A-1 (2026)
Short Title.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
This chapter may be cited as the “Alabama Eminent Domain Code.”
(Acts 1985, No. 85-548, p. 802, §101.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1986–2018 · leading case: Boutwell v. State, 988 So. 2d 1015 (Ala. 2007).
Boutwell v. State, 988 So. 2d 1015 (Ala. 2007). “Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, § 18-1A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, appointed commissioners to assess the compensation to which Boutwell was entitled for the taking of his property.”
Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc., 143 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2012). “1901, and § 18-1A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. . On November 27, 2006, the Town filed a motion to dismiss several of M & N's claims against the Town.”
Sophocleus v. Alabama Dep't of Transp., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (M.D. Ala. 2004). “4 Pursuant to the procedures set forth by the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, 1975 Ala.Code § 18-1A-1 et seq., the probate court appointed commissioners to assess the value of the land to be condemned.”
Strong v. Slate, 260 So. 3d 41 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). “1 The probate court subsequently entered a judgment awarding Slate a right-of-way, but in April 2011 Strong appealed from that judgment to the Clay Circuit Court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 18-1A-283 (a portion of the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, Ala.”
Paulk v. McCarty, 855 So. 2d 1123 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “1998), the same principles and procedures set forth in the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, § 18-1A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, governing eminent-domain actions in general govern actions brought by private parties to condemn a right-of-way easement pursuant to § 18-3-1 et seq.”
Weeks v. Herlong, 31 So. 3d 122 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Code 1975, based on the outcome of a prior action (“the condemnation action”) in which Herlong sought to condemn a right-of-way across their property pursuant to the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, § 18-1A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. The judgment in the condemnation action was…”
New Gourmet Concepts, Inc. v. SIEDO INVESTMENTS CO., LLC, 988 So. 2d 961 (Ala. 2007). “The issue before this Court is whether the condemnation clause operated to automatically terminate the lease agreement between Siedo and BSD in the event of a *966 total taking of the subject property by an action brought pursuant to the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, § 18-1A-1 et…”
Williams v. City of Birmingham, 497 So. 2d 450 (Ala. 1986). “For condemnation cases in which no judgment was entered before January 1, 1986, and for cases arising thereafter, see the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-1, et seq. AFFIRMED.”
Asphalt Contractors Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Transp., 143 So. 3d 730 (Ala. 2013). “” Both allege a compensable damage, or injury, to property pursuant to the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, § 18-1A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. I again submit that § 23 does not require an “actual physical taking” by a con-demnor and that, accordingly, both Willis and ACI alleged a…”
Ala. Power Co. v. Armstrong (Ex parte Ala. Power Co.), 262 So. 3d 1172 (Ala. 2018). “2007), this Court recognized the "confusing" nature and "unwieldiness" of the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, § 18-1A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, which was enacted in 1985 and which blended existing Alabama statutes with provisions of the Uniform Eminent Domain Code.”
Ala. Power Co. v. Armstrong (Ex parte Ala. Power Co.), 262 So. 3d 1172 (Ala. 2018). “2007), this Court recognized the "confusing" nature and "unwieldiness" of the Alabama Eminent Domain Code, § 18-1A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, which was enacted in 1985 and which blended existing Alabama statutes with provisions of the Uniform Eminent Domain Code.”
Doughty v. Birmingham Airport Auth., 675 So. 2d 431 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). “The Alabama Eminent Domain Code, Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-1 et seq. (the “Act”), “provides standards for the acquisition of property by condemnors, the conduct of condemnation actions, and the determination of just compensation.”
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.