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

O.C.G.A. § 22-1-1 (2019)

Definitions

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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

As used in this title, the term:

(1) ‘‘Blighted property,’’ ‘‘blighted,’’ or ‘‘blight’’ means any urbanized or developed property which:

(A) Presents two or more of the following conditions:

(i) Uninhabitable, unsafe, or abandoned structures;

(ii) Inadequate provisions for ventilation, light, air, or sanitation;

(iii) An imminent harm to life or other property caused by fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, storm, or other natural catastrophe respecting which the Governor has declared a state of emergency under state law or has certified the need for disaster assistance under federal law; provided, however, that this division shall not apply to property unless the relevant public agency has given notice in writing to the property owner regarding specific harm caused by the property and the owner has failed to take reasonable measures to remedy the harm;

(iv) A site identified by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as a Superfund site pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., or environmental contamination to an extent that requires remedial investigation or a feasability study;

(v) Repeated illegal activity on the individual property of which the property owner knew or should have known; or

(vi) The maintenance of the property is below state, county, or municipal codes for at least one year after notice of the code violation; and

(B) Is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, or crime in the immediate proximity of the property. Property shall not be deemed blighted because of esthetic conditions.

(2) ‘‘Common carrier’’ means any carrier required by law to convey passengers or freight without refusal if the approved fare or charge is paid.

(3) ‘‘Condemnor’’ or ‘‘condemning authority’’ means:

(A) The State of Georgia or any branch or any department, board, commission, agency, or authority of the executive branch of the government of the State of Georgia;

(B) Any county or municipality of the State of Georgia;

(C) Any housing authority with approval of the governing authority of the city or county as provided in Code Section 8-3-31.1;

(D) Any other political subdivision of the State of Georgia which possesses the power of eminent domain; and

(E) All public utilities that possess the right or power of eminent domain.

(4) ‘‘Economic development’’ means any economic activity to increase tax revenue, tax base, or employment or improve general economic health, when the activity does not result in:

(A) Transfer of land to public ownership;

(B) Transfer of property to a private entity that is a public utility;

(C) Lease of property to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project; or

(D) The remedy of blight.

(5) ‘‘Each person with a legal claim’’ means the owner of the property or of any remainder, reversion, mortgage, lease, security deed, or other claim in the property.

(6) ‘‘Interest’’ means any title or nontitle interest other than fee simple title.

(7) ‘‘Persons’’ means individuals, partnerships, associations, and corporations, domestic or foreign.

(8) ‘‘Property’’ means fee simple title.

(9)(A) ‘‘Public use’’ means:

(i) The possession, occupation, or use of the land by the general public or by state or local governmental entities;

(ii) The use of land for the creation or functioning of public utilities;

(iii) The opening of roads, the construction of defenses, or the providing of channels of trade or travel;

(iv) The acquisition of property where title is clouded due to the inability to identify or locate all owners of the property;

(v) The acquisition of property where unanimous consent is received from each person with a legal claim that has been identified and found; or

(vi) The remedy of blight.

(B) The public benefit of economic development shall not constitute a public use.

(10) ‘‘Public utility’’ means any publicly, privately, or cooperatively owned line, facility, or system for producing, transmitting, or distributing communications, power, electricity, light, heat, gas, oil products, water, steam, clay, waste, storm water not connected with highway drainage, and other similar services and commodities, including publicly owned fire and police and traffic signals and street lighting systems, which directly or indirectly serve the public. This term also means a person, municipal corporation, county, state agency, or public authority which owns or manages a utility as defined in this paragraph. This term shall also include common carriers and railroads.

History

Ga. L. 1929, p. 219, § 3; Code 1933, § 36-201; Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 3/HB 1313; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 22/HB 323.

Annotations

Cross references. - Fee simple estates generally, § 44-6-20 et seq. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 1/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as ‘The Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act.’ ’’ Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 25/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code

section shall apply to those condemnation proceedings filed on or after February 9, 2006, where title has not vested in the condemning authority unless constitutionally prohibited.

Law reviews. - For article on 2006 amendment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 157 (2006). For survey article on zoning and land use law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 457 (2008). For comment on Botts v. Southeastern Pipeline Co., 190 Ga. 689, 10 S.E.2d 375 (1940); Harrell v. Southeastern Pipeline Co., 190 Ga. 709, 10 S.E.2d 387 (1940), see 3 Ga. St. B. J. 49 (1941).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS An easement was a compensable property interest in a condemnation action. Lee v. City of Atlanta, 219 Ga. App. 264, 464 S.E.2d 879 (1995). Bad faith standard properly applied. - Trial court did not err in upholding a special master’s decision granting a county’s petition to condemn a property

owner’s land because the trial court properly concluded that the special master’s application of the bad faith standard was appropriate; the trial court found that even if the special master had applied the abuse or misuse of discretion standard, no evidence of record supported such a finding on the part of the county. Brunswick

due to ignorance of the status of methane migration. Morgan County v. Gay, 352 Ga. App. 555, 834 S.E.2d 576 (2019), cert. denied, No. S20C0331, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 380 (Ga. 2020); cert. denied, No. S20C0495, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 390 (Ga. 2020); cert. denied, No. S20C0332, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 398 (Ga. 2020). Cited in State Hwy. Dep’t v. H.G. Hastings Co., 187 Ga. 204, 199 S.E. 793 (1938); Botts v. Southeastern Pipe-Line Co., 190 Ga. 689, 10 S.E.2d 375 (1940); Harrell v. Southeastern Pipe-Line Co., 190 Ga. 709, 10 S.E.2d 386 (1940).

Landing, LLC v. Glynn County, 301 Ga. App. 288, 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009), cert. denied, No. S10C0558, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 246 (Ga. 2010). No bad faith shown on part of county. - Record supported that the condemnation of the buffer property would serve a public purpose and that the county did not act in bad faith because failing to disclose the extent of methane migration provided no financial benefit for the county since at no time did the county discount the price the county was offering the property owner for the buffer property

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Power to establish building line along street, 28 A.L.R. 314; 44 A.L.R. 1377; 53 A.L.R. 1222.

Right of public body to compensation where property held by it is taken for another public purpose, 56 A.L.R. 365.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Foskey v. Vidalia City Sch., 574 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foskey v. Vidalia City Sch., 574 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The exercise of eminent domain is a constitutional grant which requires a judicial proceeding in the form of a condemnation action to sue in superior court as well as the reciprocal to be sued for inverse condemnation.”
Darling Int'l, Inc. v. Carter, 754 S.E.2d 347 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 4× “Likewise, at the time of the conveyance to Southeastern Maintenance, the General Assembly had not yet enacted certain amendments to OCGA § 22-1-1, known as the Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act, which exempted, from the definition of “public use,”…”
Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn Cnty., 687 S.E.2d 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The property here was condemned under Title 22, OCGA § 22-1-1 et seq., which does not contain a similar statutory provision addressing the standard of review.”
Lee v. City of Atlanta, 464 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 22-1-1 (1). *266 “An easement is extinguished by a taking by eminent domain of the servient tenement, or of an interest therein, to the extent to which the taking permits a use inconsistent with the continuance of the use authorized by the easement.”
Fox v. City of Cumming, 658 S.E.2d 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The condemning authority shall bear the burden of proof by the evidence presented that the condemnation is for a public use as defined in Code Section 22-1-1. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to require the condemnee to seek or obtain a special master’s award…”
Sandersville R.R. Co. v. Robert Donald Garrett, Sr. (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “” In the course of the hearing, the Railroad shifted its justification of the Spur from economic development to providing a “channel[] of trade,” which amounts to a “public use” under OCGA § 22-1-1 (9) (A) (iii) of the eminent domain statutes, OCGA § 22-1-1 et seq.”
Morgan Cnty., Georgia v. Jimmy A. Gay (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “]” OCGA § 22-1-1 (9) (a) (i). “A court should not interfere with an exercise of the discretion of a condemning authority determining the necessity of taking land for public purposes and selecting the location and amount of land reasonably necessary unless the condemning…”
Csa-Marand, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Jettie Burnett sought to set aside a condemnation of Appellants’ property under the Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act, OCGA § 22-1-1, et seq. (the “Act”), for several reasons, including on the grounds that the Act is unconstitutional.”
Mason v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “It seems unlikely that the owners would authorize the Management Committee to receive, manage, and distribute the proceeds of condemnation but would prohibit it from any involvement in the litigation that generates those proceeds.”
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.