O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 22-2-84.1 (2019)

Appeals to superior court from assessor’s award; reasonable expenses; liability of costs relating to issues of law [Repealed]

✓ 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

Extent of interest obtainable by condemnor upon condemnation. Manner of payment where owner a minor or under disability and without a legal representative.

EMINENT DOMAIN Article 2

Sec.

Proceeding Before Special Master Sec.

‘‘Condemning body’’ and ‘‘condemnor’’ defined.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2009 · leading case: Clary v. City of Stockbridge, 686 S.E.2d 288 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Clary v. City of Stockbridge, 686 S.E.2d 288 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 44× “The City of Stockbridge cross-appeals, alleging that the trial court erred by failing to award attorney fees under former OCGA § 22-2-84.1. We consolidate these appeals, and, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm in Case No.”

Martin v. Henry Cnty. Water & Sewerage Auth., 610 S.E.2d 509 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 20× “1 In superior court, a jury awarded the Martins $6,900 for the property, and the trial court awarded the appellee, the Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority (Henry County) $3,500 in attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-84.1. On *198 appeal to this Court, the Martins…”

Mayo v. City of Stockbridge, 646 S.E.2d 79 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “The City moved for attorney fees under OCGA § 22-2-84.1. The motion was orally argued and then granted.”

Sewell v. Dep't of Transp., 578 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “On appeal she contends that she was entitled to such fees and expenses pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-84.1, because the jury in the condemnation proceedings below returned a verdict in her favor for an amount that was over 20 percent greater than the amount offered by the Department of…”

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.