Elliott v. Henry County Water & Sewerage Authority

4 Citing cases

  1. Henry County Water C. Auth. v. Adelson

    269 Ga. App. 206 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 7 times

    Banks v. Ga. Power Co., 220 Ga. App. 84, 86 (5) ( 469 SE2d 218) (1996), superseded on other grounds, 267 Ga. 602 ( 481 SE2d 200) (1997). See Elliott v. Henry County Water c. Auth., 238 Ga. App. 15 (1) ( 517 SE2d 545) (1999). 6. The Water Authority argues that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury that sentimental value must be ignored.

  2. Shepherd Interiors v. City of Atlanta

    263 Ga. App. 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    (Citations, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Elliott v. Henry County Water Sewerage Auth., 238 Ga. App. 15, 17(4) ( 517 S.E.2d 545) (1999). The city's case supporting its valuation of the property at the time of the condemnation rested almost entirely upon the property's location within the flood plain and the city's contention that the property was not subject to mitigation.

  3. Carriage Hills Assoc., Inc. v. Municipal

    590 S.E.2d 156 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Determining that where the trial court gave a curative instruction and counsel indicated no desire for further or more specific instructions, appellant acquiesced in the ruling and had no right to complain of it on appeal

    Id. Moreover, the trial court's subsequent instruction to the jury correctly distinguished between potential development in the future and structures already existing on the property. As we observed in Elliott v. Henry County Water c Auth., 238 Ga. App. 15, 17(4) ( 517 S.E.2d 545) (1999), "[i]t is appropriate for a jury to be allowed to inquire into all legitimate purposes, capabilities and uses to which the property might be adapted, provided that such use is reasonable and probable and not remote or speculative." (Citation and punctuation omitted.)

  4. Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Barron

    255 Ga. App. 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Excluding valuation based on prospective commercial development because it was "pure speculation that property would be rezoned to a commercial use"

    Elliott v. Henry County Water c. Auth.Elliott v. Henry County Water c. Auth., 238 Ga. App. 15, 17(4) ( 517 S.E.2d 545) (1999). In this case, the valuation testimony provided by Barron and Aycock was inappropriate for two reasons: (1) it was based on pure speculation that Barron's property would be rezoned to a commercial use and (2) it assumed that the property was already being used commercially at the time of the taking.