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.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Redevelopment Law.’’
History
Ga. L. 1955, p. 354, § 1.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - Ga. 1976, p. 946, § 4, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that all powers, privileges, duties, or immunities now or heretofore granted to municipalities by the Urban Redevelopment Law (this chapter), and
all Acts amendatory thereof, are granted and conferred upon every county of this state. Law reviews. - For survey article on zoning and land use law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 493 (2007) and 60 Mercer L. Rev. 457 (2008).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Housing Authority could sell acquired property to private party. - Georgia’s Urban Redevelopment Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-61-1 et seq., authorized a housing authority to exercise eminent domain to acquire and redevelop urban property found to be a ‘‘slum area;’’ the housing authority’s disposition of condemned property was authorized, and the
housing authority was entitled to summary judgment on a former owner’s claim that property had been acquired and then sold to a private party. Talley v. Housing Auth., 279 Ga. App. 94, 630 S.E.2d 550 (2006). Cited in City of Stockbridge v. Meeks, 283 Ga. App. 343, 641 S.E.2d 584 (2007).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Application of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005), to ‘‘Public
Use’’ restrictions in federal and state constitutions takings clauses and eminent domain statutes, 21 A.L.R.6th 261.
Notes of Decisions
Frazen v. Downtown Dev. Auth. of Atlanta, 309 Ga. 411 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 36-61-1 et seq. On November 20, 2017, in order to facilitate redevelopment, the City further designated The Gulch redevelopment area to be an “enterprise zone” under the Enterprise Zone Employment Act.”
City of Stockbridge v. Meeks, 641 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Subsequently, the City chose not to proceed upon a negotiated property exchange and instead elected to condemn the Property and surrounding land under Georgia’s Urban Redevelopment Law, OCGA § 36-61-1 et seq., by a series of resolutions declaring it to be a slum *344 area.”
Darling Int'l, Inc. v. Carter, 754 S.E.2d 347 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 2× “In this case, the property was not expressly acquired pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law, OCGA § 36-61-1 et seq., but in any event the parties do not dispute it was properly acquired through eminent domain proceedings and that the Lake Alma project was part of a development…”
Gramm v. City of Stockbridge, 676 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
“and under OCGA § § 36-61-1 et seq. (the “Urban Redevelopment Law”) to acquire certain property owned by Marilyn K.”
Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 357 S.E.2d 797 (Ga. 1987).
· cites it 2× “and OCGA § 36-61-1 et seq. In its complaint the appellee alleged that acquisition of the appellants’ property was necessary for the Underground Atlanta Urban Redevelopment Project.”
Waller v. Clayton Cnty., 409 S.E.2d 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Condemnor Clayton County initiated this action to implement an urban redevelopment plan adopted pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law (OCGA § 36-61-1 et seq.). Condemnee Waller, both individually and as Executor of the Estate of J.”
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.