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

O.C.G.A. § 22-1-14 (2019)

Valuation of condemned property

✓ 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

(a) When property is condemned under this title or any other title of this Code, the value of the condemned property may be determined through lay or expert testimony and its admissibility shall be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. (b) If any party to a condemnation proceeding seeks to introduce expert testimony as to the issue of just and adequate compensation, Code Section 24-7-702 shall not apply.

History

Code 1981, § 22-1-14, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 5/HB 1313; Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 38/HB 24.

Annotations

Cross references. - Expert opinion testimony in civil actions, § 24-7-702. 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. Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101/HB 24, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Act shall apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after January 1, 2013. Law reviews. - For annual survey of evidence law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 151 (2006). For article on 2006 enactment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (2006). For article, ‘‘Evidence,’’ see 27 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011). For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Lay witness opinion inadmissible on cost to build bridge. - Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in excluding, for insufficient foundation, a witness’s opinion testimony concerning the cost to build a bridge over a waterway to cure trusts’ lost usage after the condemnation of a ford over the waterway because the proffer the trusts made did not demonstrate pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-9-66 a basis upon which the witness could have formed the witness’s own opinion on the cost to build the bridge apart

from the single estimate the witness received; the trusts did not proffer that the witness obtained any other estimates concerning the cost to construct the bridge, spoke to anyone else about that cost, or possessed or sought to obtain any other information about that cost or about the accuracy of the estimate the witness had received. Martha K. Wayt Trust v. City of Cumming, 306 Ga. App. 790, 702 S.E.2d 915 (2010). Cited in Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271, 658 S.E.2d 603 (2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Eminent Domain, § 223 et seq.

C.J.S. - 29A C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 141 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 658 S.E.2d 603 (Ga. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 658 S.E.2d 603 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 4× “”), and in civil condemnation actions, which are exempted from the requirements of the statute by OCGA § 22-1-14 (b), thereby establishing their appellate standing to assert a claim of denial of equal protection of the law.”
Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 712 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “5 However, OCGA § 22-1-14 (b) excludes condemnation cases from this code section.”
Yugueros v. Robles, 793 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 24-7-702 reads: (a) Except as provided in Code Section 22-1-14 and in subsection (g) of this Code section, the provisions of this Code section shall apply in all civil proceedings.”
Toler v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 761 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Moreover, we note OCGA § 22-1-14 (b), which exempts expert testimony regarding just and adequate compensation for the value of condemned property from the standards of OCGA § 24-9-67.”
Martha K. Wayt Trust v. City of Cumming, 702 S.E.2d 915 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “4 See also OCGA § 22-1-14 (a) (value of condemned property may be determined through lay testimony, admissibility of which is within trial court’s discretion).”
Kalone Antoine Wilson v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[21] and its progeny.”22 And under this standard, 20 See 2022 Ga.”
Flint Douglas Duerfeldt v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 24-7-702 (a) (“Except as provided in Code Section 22-1-14 and in subsection (g) of this Code section, the provisions of this Code section shall apply in all proceedings.”
Charlotte Landy v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[37] and its progeny.”38 Under this standard, 36 See 2022 Ga.”
Ray E. Toler v. Georgia Dep't of Transp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Moreover, we note OCGA § 22-1-14 (b), which exempts expert testimony regarding just and adequate compensation for the value of condemned property from the standards of OCGA § 24-9-67.”
— 22-1-14(b) — 1 case
Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 658 S.E.2d 603 (Ga. 2008). “”), and in civil condemnation actions, which are exempted from the requirements of the statute by OCGA § 22-1-14 (b), thereby establishing their appellate standing to assert a claim of denial of equal protection of the law.”
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.