Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 22-1-11 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 22-1-11 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 22-1-11

TITLE 22 EMINENT DOMAIN

Section 1. General Provisions, 22-1-1 through 22-1-15.

22-1-11. Determination of authority to exercise public domain.

Before the vesting of title in the condemnor and upon motion of the condemnee, or within ten days of the entry of the special master's award by entry of exception to the case, the court shall determine whether the exercise of the power of eminent domain is for a public use and whether the condemning authority has the legal authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and may stay other proceedings of the condemnation pending the decision of the court. 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 prior to a hearing or decision by the court under this Code section.

(Code 1981, §22-1-11, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 5/HB 1313.)

Effective date.

- This Code section became effective April 4, 2006.

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 1, 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, 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 enactment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (2006).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Dismissal of action as nonjusticiable upheld.

- Because city had yet to file a condemnation action against a landowner, landowner's suit seeking a public use determination under O.C.G.A. § 22-1-11 was properly dismissed, as it failed to present a justiciable controversy, and the city's mere inchoate intention to do so, if at all, did not give rise to a justiciable cause of action; moreover, if the appeals court construed this section to be applicable before the initiation of a condemnation action, the court would render meaningless the phrase "before the vesting of title in the condemnor," because that clarification would be redundant. Fox v. City of Cumming, 289 Ga. App. 803, 658 S.E.2d 408 (2008).

Property owner's interpretation was not lacking in justification.

- Property owner's interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 22-1-11 was not so devoid of a justiciable issue or so lacking in substantial justification that it could not be reasonably believed that a court would accept that interpretation, such that an award of attorney fees against the owner pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14(a) and (b) could not stand. Fox v. City of Cumming, 298 Ga. App. 134, 679 S.E.2d 365 (2009).

Cited in City of Marietta v. Summerour, 302 Ga. 645, 807 S.E.2d 324 (2017).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 22-1-11

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

City of Marietta v. Summerour, 302 Ga. 645 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 30 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 30, 2017 | 807 S.E.2d 324

...ther provisions of the Act set forth additional protections for property owners. OCGA § 22-1-10, for instance, imposes certain notice requirements with which a condemning authority must comply before initiating formal condemnation proceedings. OCGA § 22-1-11 expressly authorizes a superior court in condemnation proceedings to decide, before title vests in the condemning authority, whether the condemnation is legally authorized,2 and it permits the superior court to stay condemnation proceedings pending that decision....
...se of eminent domain in Georgia. See Morrison, supra, at 63-67 (noting concerns about a condemnation by the City of Stockbridge, which culminated in City of Stockbridge v. Meeks, 283 Ga. App. 343 (641 SE2d 584) (2007)). Even before the adoption of Section 22-1-11, a superior court in condemnation proceedings was authorized to consider whether the condemnation was within the lawful authority of the condemning authority. See City of Atlanta v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 246 Ga. 424, 424 & n.l (271 SE2d 821) (1980); Scarlett v. Georgia Ports Auth., 223 Ga. 417, 418 (1) (156 SE2d 77) (1967). Section 22-1-11 reinforces that longstanding rule. This statement of legislative purpose appears in the codified preamble of Section 22-1-9....