O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) The petition referred to in Code Section 32-3-4 shall set forth: (1) The facts showing the right to condemn; (2) The property or interests to be taken or damaged; (3) The names and residences of the persons whose property or interests are to be taken or otherwise affected, so far as known; (4) Descriptions of the persons or classes of unknown persons whose rights therein are to be excluded or otherwise affected; (5) Such other facts as are necessary for a full understanding of the cause; (6) A prayer for the judgment of the court in accordance with Code Section 32-3-13 or 32-3-19; and (7) The date of the approval of the original location of the highway. (b) If any of the persons referred to in the petition are, so far as may be known, minors or under disability, that fact shall be stated. (c) It shall be the duty of the condemning authority, within 30 days from the date of the original approval and designation of said location as a highway, to cause the location of said highway in said county to be advertised once each week for four consecutive weeks in the newspaper of the county in which the sheriff’s advertisements are carried; and said advertisement shall designate the land lots or land districts of said
county through which such highway will be located. Said advertisement shall further show the date of the original location of such highway as provided for in this subsection. Said advertisement shall further state that a plat or map of the project showing the exact date of the original location is on file at the office of the Department of Transportation and that any interested party may obtain a copy of same by writing to the Department of Transportation and paying a nominal cost therefor.
History
Code 1933, § 95A-604, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1539, § 10.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For review of 1998
legislation relating to eminent domain, see 15 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 115 (1998). For annual survey on real property law, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 301 (2009).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Necessity of taking is presumed. - O.C.G.A. § 32-3-5 does not require the condemnor in its condemnation to establish the necessity of condemning the particular property taken; necessity is presumed, and the presumption is rebutted only by a showing by the condemnee of fraud or bad faith by the condemnor in its decision to condemn the land. West v. DOT, 176 Ga. App. 806, 338 S.E.2d 45 (1985). Descriptions sufficiently clear to allow proof of damages. - When the notice clearly described and depicted the easement areas and specified the permanent nature of the easements, the descriptions were sufficiently clear to allow proof of damages. Skipper v. DOT, 197 Ga. App. 634, 399 S.E.2d 538 (1990).
Property or interests to be taken or damaged. - Court did not abuse the court’s discretion when the court directed the Department of Transportation as condemnor to recast the department’s declaration of taking to include reasonably foreseeable personalty and fixtures. DOT v. Whitfield, 233 Ga. App. 747, 505 S.E.2d 247 (1998). Cited in DOT v. Olshan, 237 Ga. 213, 227 S.E.2d 349 (1976); Robinson v. DOT, 185 Ga. App. 597, 364 S.E.2d 884 (1988); DOT v. Morris, 186 Ga. App. 673, 368 S.E.2d 155 (1988); Bates & Assocs. v. Department of Transp., 186 Ga. App. 828, 368 S.E.2d 544 (1988); DOT v. Whitfield, 233 Ga. App. 747, 505 S.E.2d 247 (1998).
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, 337 S.E.2d 327 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to this reasoning, the court construed the language in question against the condemning authority in a case where public interests were subject to condemnation proceedings. The substance, if not the form, of 50 Acres thus supports the use of strict construction against a…”
West v. Dep't of Transp., 338 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 32-3-5 (a) (1) requires the condemnor in its condemnation to set forth “(1) [t]he facts showing the right to condemn.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Morris, 368 S.E.2d 155 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Held: OCGA § 32-3-5 (3) requires the condemnor to include in the condemnation petition "[t]he names and residences of the persons whose property or interests are to be taken or otherwise affected, so far as known.”
Skipper v. Dep't of Transp., 399 S.E.2d 538 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The descriptions were sufficiently clear to allow proof of damages under OCGA § 32-3-5. The case cited by appellant, City of Atlanta v.”
Robinson v. Dep't of Transp., 364 S.E.2d 884 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 32-3-5 requires the petition for condemnation to establish the property to be taken and the names and residences of any whose property interests are affected thereby, including persons or classes of unknown persons whose rights are to be affected.”
Bates & Assocs., Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 368 S.E.2d 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “See OCGA §§ 32-3-5 through 32-3-9. On March 30, 1987, which, according to the record, was more than thirty days after being served with the petition, Bates filed an appeal, pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-14, asserting that the appraised price was inadequate.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Bunn, 603 S.E.2d 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “DOT is correct that Georgia law requires only that a property owner be notified at the time a petition is filed of what rights and/or interests are being acquired; however, Georgia law also provides that DOT’s pre-condemnation actions are subject to OCGA § 32-3-11.”
Postell v. Bd. of Commissioners, 732 S.E.2d 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA §§ 32-3-5 and 32-3-6 detail the contents of a proper condemnation petition, including a declaration of taking and an estimate of just compensation.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Whitfield, 505 S.E.2d 247 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Held: In four related enumerations of error, DOT contends the superior court’s grant of condemnee’s motion for a more definite statement is erroneous because the original declaration of taking fully complies with OCGA § 32-3-5; because condemnee Whitfield failed to object to the…”
Edgewater Hall Enter., LLC v. City of Canton (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 32-3-5 (a) (3). 16 To determine whether Edgewater Hall was the property owner, and therefore whether the City should have named it as a party in the petition, we must look to the relevant deed.”
Crandall Postell v. Bd. of Commissioners Of (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA §§ 32-3-5 and 32-3-6 detail the contents of a proper condemnation petition, including a declaration of taking and an estimate of just compensation.”
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.