City of Gainesville v. Loggins

3 Citing cases

  1. City of Gainesville v. Chambers

    162 S.E.2d 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 20 times
    In City of Gainesville v. Chambers, 118 Ga. App. 25 (162 S.E.2d 460) (1968), the court rejected what it felt was a too sweeping statement of uniqueness in Troncalli, held that the property had to have peculiar value to the owner, and found that the charge was not authorized as there was no evidence that fair market value would not give the owner just and adequate compensation.

    This court dismissed the appeals. City of Gainesville v. Loggins, 116 Ga. App. 548 ( 158 S.E.2d 287); City of Gainesville v. Chambers, 116 Ga. App. 553 ( 158 S.E.2d 291). The judgments of dismissal are now vacated, having been reversed by the Supreme Court. City of Gainesville v. Loggins, 224 Ga. 114 ( 160 S.E.2d 374); City of Gainesville v. Chambers, 224 Ga. 117 ( 160 S.E.2d 377). We therefore determine the merits of each of the appeals.

  2. City of Gainesville v. Loggins

    160 S.E.2d 374 (Ga. 1968)   Cited 13 times
    In City of Gainesville v. Loggins, 224 Ga. 114 (160 S.E.2d 374) (1968), relied on by the condemnee in support of his dismissal motion, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that "[w]here the appeal is from a jury verdict and judgment based thereon for an amount in excess of the original award, and the judgment directs to whom the payment is to be made, then the payment or tender to the condemnee in accordance with such judgment is mandatory under the requirement of the Constitution that just and adequate compensation be first paid."

    DECIDED MARCH 7, 1968. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 116 Ga. App. 548 ( 158 S.E.2d 287). Kenyon Gunter, William B. Gunter, for appellant.

  3. City of Gainesville v. Chambers

    116 Ga. App. 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    PER CURIAM. Each of the above cases as well as the cross appeal in Case Number 43043 is controlled by City of Gainesville v. Loggins, 116 Ga. App. 548. The issue raised in each of the case including the issue raised in the cross appeal in case No. 43043 being moot, the appeal in each case and the cross appeal is