Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 22-2-102.1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 22-2-102.1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 22-2-102.1

TITLE 22 EMINENT DOMAIN

Section 2. Condemnation Procedure Generally, 22-2-1 through 22-2-142.

ARTICLE 2 PROCEEDING BEFORE SPECIAL MASTER

22-2-102.1. Petitioning superior court for judgment in rem.

In addition to the requirements set forth in Code Section 22-1-10, whenever it shall be necessary for such condemning body to take or damage private property, or any interest or easement therein, in pursuance of any law so authorizing, for any public use, and where, by reason of the necessities of the public needs, of which the condemning body shall be the exclusive judge, and it shall be desirable for these reasons to have a quick and effective adjudication of the just and adequate compensation to be paid the owner or owners of such property before taking the same, and it shall be desirable to have a judicial ascertainment and judicial supervision of all questions and proceedings connected with the matter, such condemning body may, through any authorized representative, petition the superior court of the county having jurisdiction, for a judgment in rem against said property, or any easement or other interest in said property, condemning the same in fee simple to the use of the petitioner upon payment of just and adequate compensation therefor.

(Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 3; Code 1981, §22-2-102.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 16.1; Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 9/HB 1313.)

Effective date.

- This Code section became effective January 25, 1983.

The 2006 amendment, effective April 4, 2006, substituted "In addition to the requirements set forth in Code Section 22-1-10, whenever" for "Whenever" at the beginning; and substituted "for any public use" for "for any public purpose". For applicability, see Editor's notes.

Editor's notes.

- The provisions of this Code section were previously enacted in substantially similar form by Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 3. However, those provisions were not enacted as part of the original Code by the Code enactment Act (Ga. L. 1981, Ex. Sess., p. 8).

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.

Law reviews.

- For article on 2006 amendment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (2006). For survey article on zoning and land use law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 493 (2007). For note, "Standards of Judicial Review of Condemnation Proceedings Under Georgia's Special Master's Act," see 20 Ga. St. B.J. 82 (1983).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Authority of special master.

- The provision in this Code section that "the condemning body shall be the exclusive judge" of the public need does not give the condemning authority an absolute right of taking based upon its own determination of necessity. The special master has the authority to hear and determine any legal objection to the taking. Central of Ga. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Mills, 196 Ga. App. 882, 397 S.E.2d 137 (1990).

Application of presumption limited.

- The presumption that the right to condemn for a valid public purpose, absent a finding of its bad faith, applies only to a finding that a condemnation is necessary under O.C.G.A. § 22-2-102.1. City of Stockbridge v. Meeks, 283 Ga. App. 343, 641 S.E.2d 584 (2007).

Condemnor is the exclusive judge of necessity in condemnation for public purposes.

- Under Georgia law, the condemnor is the exclusive judge of necessity in the condemnation of private property for public purposes. Mosteller Mill, Ltd. v. Ga. Power Co., 271 Ga. App. 287, 609 S.E.2d 211 (2005).

Sufficient compliance with O.C.G.A.

§ 22-1-6 shown. - Trial court did not err in denying the property owners' motion to dismiss the condemnation petition, nor in overruling the owners' exception to the special master's award, because the evidence at the special master hearing showed that the telecommunications condemnor made an effort to agree on a purchase price for the property, but that those negotiations ultimately failed, which was sufficient to show that the condemnor could not procure the property by contract within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 22-1-6. White v. Ringgold Tel. Co., 334 Ga. App. 325, 779 S.E.2d 378 (2015), cert. denied, No. S16C0404, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 148 (Ga. 2016).

Ordinance infringing on utility's eminent domain power.

- Forsyth County, Ga., Unified Development Code §§ 21-6.1 and 21-6.5, were defective because they required a utility to successfully comply with the ordinance's procedures, and authorized the county to deny "any or all" portions of an application; as such, they were unconstitutional infringements on the utility's legislativelydelegated power of eminent domain. Forsyth County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 280 Ga. 664, 632 S.E.2d 101 (2006).

Cited in Banks v. Georgia Power Co., 220 Ga. App. 84, 469 S.E.2d 218 (1996); Simmons v. Webster County, 225 Ga. App. 830, 485 S.E.2d 501 (1997).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 22-2-102.1

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton Cnty., 295 Ga. 515 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 11, 2014 | 761 S.E.2d 282

...ondemnation of the property at issue, and it also decided to use the special master method, knowing that such a proceeding is required to move quickly. See OCGA §§ 22-2-101 (special master method is designed to be “quick”), 22-2-102 (same), 22-2-102.1 (same), 22-2-107 (g) (“The purpose of this [special master method is] to quicken and simplify the condemnation proceeding ....
Copy

Rabun Cnty. v. Georgia Transmission Corp., 575 S.E.2d 474 (Ga. 2003).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 13, 2003 | 276 Ga. 81, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 140

...project before GTC can possess the power of eminent domain. But such circular argument fails. There is simply no requirement that GTC demonstrate to Rabun County the necessity or the appropriateness of its proposed project. Quite the contrary. OCGA § 22-2-102.1 provides that the condemning body, not the governing authority, is to be the "exclusive judge" of the "necessities of the public needs." As we have noted, there are safeguards in place for review of the decision of an electric membership corporation as a condemning body....
...y and economically feasible to provide the electric power to meet the foreseeable needs of the North Lake Burton/Persimmon communities without constructing new high voltage transmission lines." This statement directly contravenes the mandate of OCGA § 22-2-102.1 that grants GTC, as the condemning body, the exclusive power to decide the "necessities of the public needs." 5....
Copy

Forsyth Cnty. v. Georgia Transmission Corp., 632 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 26, 2006 | 280 Ga. 664

...pose of furnishing electric power and service. See OCGA §§ 46-3-201(b)(9) [1] and 22-3-20. [2] Pursuant to this delegated power, GTC is a condemning body with the authority to act as the exclusive judge of the necessities of the public needs. OCGA § 22-2-102.1....
...ent for that of the condemnor. As was stated in Rabun County, supra at 86(3), 575 S.E.2d 474: "There is simply no requirement that GTC demonstrate to [the] County the necessity or the appropriateness of its proposed project. Quite the contrary. OCGA § 22-2-102.1 provides that the condemning body, not the governing authority, is to be the `exclusive judge' of the `necessities of the public needs.'" The ability to deny power line corridor applications and halt projects means that the county would...

Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton Cnty. (Ga. 2014).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 11, 2014 | 280 Ga. 664

...issue, and it also decided to use the special master method, knowing that such a proceeding is required to move quickly. See OCGA §§ 22-2-101 (special 17 master method is designed to be “quick”), 22-2-102 (same), 22-2-102.1 (same), 22-2-107 (g) (“The purpose of this [special master method is] to quicken and simplify the condemnation proceeding ....