O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 32-7-3 (2019)

Authority of department, counties, and municipalities to dispose of property no longer needed for public road purposes

✓ 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

Whenever any property has been acquired in any manner by the department, a county, or a municipality for public road purposes and thereafter the department, county, or municipality determines that all or any part of the property or any interest therein is no longer needed for such purposes because of changed conditions, the department or the county or municipality is authorized to dispose of such property or such interest therein in accordance with Code Section 32-7-4. Any disposition of property acquired for utility relocation, as provided for in Code

Section 32-6-172, or on which utilities are located shall not be subject to Code Section 32-7-4; and no provision of this title shall be construed to prevent the department from conveying to the federal government land or interests in land acquired for federal parkways in Georgia, as provided in Article 2 of Chapter 3 of this title.

History

Code 1933, § 95A-620, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Offer to original owner of property acquired, then rezoned. - If a county or municipality acquires land for public road purposes, rezones the land in a manner increasing the land’s value, and then decides to sell the property, the county or municipality has decided that the property was no longer needed for public road purposes at the time of the rezoning and, thus, the property must be offered to the original owner based on the land’s value under the land’s pre-rezoning classification. DeWolff v. Fulton County, 253 Ga. 744, 325 S.E.2d 140 (1985). Application. - Trial court properly

granted summary judgment to a county and purchaser because the prior owner of the property condemned by the county never had a binding contract with the county to re-purchase a remnant, unused portion and there was no conflict between O.C.G.A. §§ 32-7-3, 32-7-4, and 36-9-3(h) and the county’s code amendment. Hubert Props., LLP v. Cobb County, 318 Ga. App. 321, 733 S.E.2d 373 (2012). Cited in Hall County Historical Soc’y, Inc. v. Georgia DOT, 447 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ga. 1978); Swims v. Fulton County, 267 Ga. 94, 475 S.E.2d 597 (1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1985–2012 · leading case: Hubert Props., LLP v. Cobb Cnty., 733 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hubert Props., LLP v. Cobb Cnty., 733 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “Hubert contends that the trial court erred by holding that the County properly disposed of the remnant tract of land under OCGA § 36-9-3 (h) instead of under OCGA § 32-7-3 and OCGA § 32-7-4. OCGA § 36-9-3 (h) provides: Notwithstanding any provision of this Code section or of any…”

Swims v. Fulton Cnty., 475 S.E.2d 597 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 6× “Swims’ contention that the exchange is governed by the provisions of OCGA §§ 32-7-3 and 32-7-4 is incorrect. OCGA § 32-7-3 provides that if a change in conditions causes the DOT, a county or a municipality to determine that property acquired for public road purposes is no longer…”

Hubert Props., LLP v. Cobb Cnty., Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “Hubert Properties contends that the trial court erred by holding that the County properly disposed of the remnant tract of land under OCGA § 36-9-3 (h) instead of under OCGA § 32-7-3 and OCGA § 32-7-4. OCGA § 36-9-3 (h) provides: Notwithstanding any provision of this Code…”

DeWolff v. Fulton Cnty., 325 S.E.2d 140 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 32-7-3 et seq. The appellants are property owners whose properties were acquired for road purposes, but fractional acreages within these properties were not used for road purposes.”

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.