Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448As used in this article, "condemning body" or "condemnor" means:
(Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 1; Ga. L. 1962, p. 461, § 1; Ga. L. 1967, p. 825, § 1; Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 7/HB 1313.)
The 2006 amendment, effective April 4, 2006, inserted "or any department, board, commission, agency, or authority of the executive branch" in paragraph (1); added "with approval of the governing authority of the city or county as provided in Code Section 8-3-31.1" at the end of paragraph (3); substituted "possesses" for "is vested with" near the end of paragraph (4); and substituted "All public utilities that possess" for "All other persons possessing" at the beginning of paragraph (5). For applicability, see 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 only apply to petitions for condemnation filed on or after April 4, 2006.
- For article on 2006 amendment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (2006). For survey article on local government law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 147 (2015).
Legislative intent of 1967 amendment was to vest power companies which supply electricity to the public with the power to condemn in fee simple for public purposes and subject to the protective statutory procedures provided in the act. Harwell v. Georgia Power Co., 246 Ga. 203, 269 S.E.2d 464 (1980).
This article is ample authority for power company to condemn in fee simple whenever it can show a public purpose and necessity. Harwell v. Georgia Power Co., 246 Ga. 203, 269 S.E.2d 464 (1980).
Actions to condemn sewer easements are properly brought under this article. Threatt v. Fulton County, 266 Ga. 466, 467 S.E.2d 546 (1996).
- See Central of Ga. R.R. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 257 Ga. 217, 356 S.E.2d 865 (1987).
- County water and sewer authority could charge a developer tap fees after the authority acquired, by condemnation under O.C.G.A. § 22-2-100 et seq., the developer's contract with a private company which allowed termination at will; another provider's condemned contracts did not allow for termination, and thus, a rational basis existed under the Fourteenth Amendment for treating the developer differently. Highland Props. v. Lee County Utils. Auth., F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2005).
- Trial court properly refused to dismiss a landowner's appeal on grounds that it failed to express dissatisfaction with the compensation awarded by the special master, as it provided the utility with notice that the landowner was objecting to the valuation given on the property; moreover, in light of the interest that the utility acquired in the property, and the purposes for which it intended to use that property, consequential damages potentially represented a significant portion of the compensation the landowner could recover. Ga. Power Co. v. Stowers, 282 Ga. App. 695, 639 S.E.2d 605 (2006).
Condemnation of a property owner's land by a city was upheld on appeal, as was the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict in the amount of $63,361 for the property and an award of attorney fees to the city, because the property owner never challenged the valuation made by a special master and also removed the amount awarded from the registry, thereby estopping the owner from challenging the legality of the taking on appeal. Mayo v. City of Stockbridge, 285 Ga. App. 58, 646 S.E.2d 79 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C1279, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 707 (Ga. 2007).
Cited in Herron v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 177 Ga. App. 201, 338 S.E.2d 777 (1985); Stafford v. Bryan County Bd. of Educ., 212 Ga. App. 6, 440 S.E.2d 774 (1994); Clary v. City of Stockbridge, 300 Ga. App. 623, 686 S.E.2d 288 (2009).
Total Results: 13
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-30
Citation: 302 Ga. 645, 807 S.E.2d 324
Snippet: evidentiary hearing before a special master, see OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq., the superior court adopted the return
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-07-11
Snippet: 1957, p. 387 (codified as amended at OCGA §§ 22-2-100 to 22-2-114).1 On February 24, 2012, the County
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-07-11
Citation: 295 Ga. 515, 761 S.E.2d 282, 2014 WL 3396511, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 583
Snippet: 1957, p. 387 (codified as amended at OCGA §§ 22-2-100 to 22-2-114). 1 On February 24, 2012
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-01-27
Citation: 294 Ga. 455, 754 S.E.2d 347, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 106, 2014 WL 273897, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 101
Snippet: that it was filed pursuant to what is now OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq., the Special Master provisions for eminent
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-06-01
Citation: 695 S.E.2d 265, 287 Ga. 235, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1753, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 411
Snippet: non-equity cases concerning condemnation (OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq.), quiet title actions (OCGA § 23-3-63)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-05-17
Citation: 695 S.E.2d 576, 287 Ga. 334, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1605, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 403
Snippet: appeal: the special master method, see OCGA §§ 22-2-100 to 22-2-114, and the declaration of taking method
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-02-17
Citation: 481 S.E.2d 200, 267 Ga. 602, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 521, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 47
Snippet: special master hearing was held pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq. and an award entered by the special master
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-10-07
Citation: 476 S.E.2d 727, 267 Ga. 274, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3537, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 726
Snippet: application of the Special Master Act, OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq., specifically, that provision of the Act
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-03-11
Citation: 467 S.E.2d 546, 266 Ga. 466, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 963, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 101
Snippet: NOTES [1] The actions were brought under OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq. [2] The property is located on the south
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-02-13
Citation: 265 Ga. 175, 453 S.E.2d 692
Snippet: chose to utilize the Special Master Act, OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq., as its method of condemning permanent
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-01-10
Citation: 439 S.E.2d 640, 263 Ga. 856, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 178, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 28
Snippet: In its award, the special master (see OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq.) found that the actual market value of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1988-03-09
Citation: 365 S.E.2d 413, 258 Ga. 58, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 158
Snippet: a proceeding before a special master, OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq., was the method utilized here.[2] The
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1987-07-15
Citation: 257 Ga. 315, 357 S.E.2d 797, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 816
Snippet: rem condemnation proceeding pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq. and OCGA § 36-61-1 et seq. In its complaint