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: 904-383-7448In 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
§ 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).
- 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).
Total Results: 4
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-07-11
Snippet: is designed to be “quick”), 22-2-102 (same), 22-2-102.1 (same), 22-2-107 (g) (“The purpose of this [special
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: is designed to be “quick”), 22-2-102 (same), 22-2-102.1 (same), 22-2-107 (g) (“The purpose of this [special
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-06-26
Citation: 632 S.E.2d 101, 280 Ga. 664
Snippet: of the necessities of the public needs. OCGA § 22-2-102.1. Under the Forsyth County ordinance, however
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: proposed project. Quite the contrary. OCGA § 22-2-102.1 provides that the condemning body, not the governing