Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448It is the province of the General Assembly to determine when the right of eminent domain may be exercised. If, however, under pretext of such necessity the General Assembly should pass a law authorizing the taking of property for private use rather than for public use, the courts should declare the law inoperative.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2202; Code 1868, § 2197; Code 1873, § 2223; Code 1882, § 2223; Civil Code 1895, § 3053; Civil Code 1910, § 3625; Code 1933, § 36-102.)
- The necessity or expediency of appropriating particular property for public use is not a matter of judicial cognizance, but one for the determination of the legislative branch of the government, and this must obviously be so where the state takes for its own purposes. State Hwy. Dep't v. Smith, 219 Ga. 800, 136 S.E.2d 334 (1964).
- In the exercise of the jurisdiction granted by this section, the Legislature passed acts which are embodied in this Code as §§ 44-8-4 and22-3-20. Central Ga. Power Co. v. Ham, 139 Ga. 569, 77 S.E. 396 (1913).
- Since the necessity for taking private property for a public use is a legislative and not a judicial function, due process does not require notice to the owner nor an opportunity to be heard by him before such determination can be made. State Hwy. Dep't v. Smith, 219 Ga. 800, 136 S.E.2d 334 (1964).
Cited in Williamson v. Housing Auth., 186 Ga. 673, 199 S.E. 43 (1938); Russell v. Venable, 216 Ga. 137, 115 S.E.2d 103 (1960); Norton Realty & Loan Co. v. Board of Educ., 129 Ga. App. 668, 200 S.E.2d 461 (1973); DOT v. City of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 124, 337 S.E.2d 327 (1985).
- 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Eminent Domain, §§ 5, 38.
- 29A C.J.S., Eminent Domain, §§ 19, 29-31, 87, 88.
- Exercise of eminent domain to control the use or improvement of property not taken, 23 A.L.R. 876.
Right of abutting owner to compensation for interference with access by bridge or other structure in public street or highway, 45 A.L.R. 534.
Constitutionality of statute conferring power of eminent domain on private corporation or association for educational, religious, or recreational purpose, 50 A.L.R. 1530.
Public benefit or convenience as distinguished from use by the public as ground for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, 54 A.L.R. 7.
Power to condemn, or authorize the condemnation of, capital stock of a public utility, 81 A.L.R. 1071.
Diversion of park property to other uses as taking or damaging neighboring property without compensation, 83 A.L.R. 1435.
Injunction against exercise of power of eminent domain, 133 A.L.R. 11, 93 A.L.R.2d 465.
Eminent domain: possibility of overcoming specific obstacles to contemplated use as element in determining existence of necessary public use, 22 A.L.R.4th 840.
Total Results: 4
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-01-13
Citation: 575 S.E.2d 474, 276 Ga. 81, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 140, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 4
Snippet: right of eminent domain may be exercised." OCGA § 22-1-3. And the legislature has unquestionably delegated
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-07-05
Citation: 532 S.E.2d 401, 272 Ga. 624, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2493, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 537
Snippet: Howard, 226 Ga. App. at 545. OCGA § 50-21-22 (1), (3). See OCGA §§ 51-4-2, 51-4-5; Lovett v. Garvin
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1985-12-11
Citation: 338 S.E.2d 240, 255 Ga. 324, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 1004
Snippet: “private enterprise for private uses.” (e) OCGA § 22-1-3 provides: “It is the province of the General Assembly
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1985-10-08
Citation: 337 S.E.2d 327, 255 Ga. 124, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 1002
Snippet: regarding matters relating to condemnation. OCGA § 22-1-3 states, “It is the province of the General Assembly