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

O.C.G.A. § 22-2-1 (2019)

‘‘Condemnor’’ defined

✓ 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 article, the term ‘‘condemnor’’ means any person or corporation which has been authorized by the General Assembly to exercise the power of eminent domain.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Railroads as condemnors. - See Central of Ga. R.R. v. Georgia Pub. Serv.

Comm’n, 257 Ga. 217, 356 S.E.2d 865 (1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Jury trial under Rule 71A(h) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 71A(h), 28 U.S.C.A.)

in condemnation proceedings by United States, 164 A.L.R. Fed. 341.

PART 2 NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION

Cross references. - Service of process generally, § 9-11-4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley, 720 S.E.2d 305 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley, 720 S.E.2d 305 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 22-2-1 et seq. governs condemnation for general public purposes, including the construction of utilities.”
Shiv Aban, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 784 S.E.2d 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “1 Two other methods of condemnation exist under Georgia law: the assessor method, see OCGA §§ 22-2-1 to 22-2-86; and the special master method, see OCGA §§ 22-2-100 to 22-2-114.”
Powell v. Ledbetter Bros., 307 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 2× “The Georgia Constitution provides that “private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid .”
Windsor v. City of Atlanta, 695 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “A third method - the assessor method, see OCGA §§ 22-2-1 to 22-2-86 - is not at issue.”
Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton Cnty., 761 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “95 (codified as amended at OCGA §§ 22-2-1 to 22-2-86), which is discussed below, and the “declaration of taking” method, see Ga.”
Fountain v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 346 S.E.2d 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 22-2-1 et seq. provides the proper procedure for the taking of private property through condemnation, or the exercise of eminent domain.”
City of Atlanta v. Yusen Air & Sea Serv. Holdings, Inc., 587 S.E.2d 230 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “326, 327 (1) ( 457 SE2d 582 ) (1995) (“[W]hen taking property for transportation purposes, a condemnor may choose to use either the procedures set forth in OCGA § 22-2-1 et seq. or those set forth in OCGA § 32-3-4 et seq.”
Benton v. Georgia Marble Co., 365 S.E.2d 413 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “All proceedings in relation thereto shall be had and the damages shall be assessed and paid according to the method of condemning land provided in Title 22.”
Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Cent. Parking Sys. of Georgia, Inc., 307 S.E.2d 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, Central and MARTA stipulated and agreed to use the condemnation procedure provided for in OCGA § 22-2-1 et seq. (Code Ann. § 36-101 et seq.”
Back v. City of Warner Robins, 457 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “The condemnees argue that condemnors may take property through a declaration of taking pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-4 only if title to the property to be condemned is in question; otherwise, the condemnees contend, the condemnor must use the procedure set forth in OCGA § 22-2-1 et…”
Clayton Cnty. Water Auth. v. Harbin, 384 S.E.2d 453 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The Clayton County Water Authority instituted condemnation proceedings pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-1 et seq. to acquire 23.6 acres of land owned by the appellee.”
Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Cent. of Georgia R.R., 346 S.E.2d 568 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “What power they have to condemn is purely a creature of statute (see OCGA §§ 22-2-1; 22-2-100), and may likewise properly be limited or modified, or in fact taken away altogether as the legislature deems necessary.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.