Johnston v. Clayton County

9 Citing cases

  1. Ware v. Henry Cty. Water and Sewerage

    575 S.E.2d 654 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 7 times

    Even if HCWSA has the power of condemnation, the Patricks assert that it lacked the authority to exert it extraterritorially in Butts County. In ruling that HCWSA has the power of condemnation, the trial court relied upon Johnston v. Clayton Co. Water Auth, 222 Ga. 39 ( 148 S.E.2d 417) (1966), in which the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the Clayton County Water Authority (CCWA) had the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court first examined the act creating the CCWA, Ga. L. 1955, pp. 3344-3351. It concluded that the act did not grant the CCWA the power of eminent domain, but did grant it the power to build and maintain a water system and to issue revenue anticipation certificates.

  2. Cline v. McMullan

    263 Ga. 321 (Ga. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    In condemnation cases under Art. 1 of Title 22, a condemnee does have the right to file an equitable action contesting the taking, including but not limited to the necessity therefor, following the assessors' award. See Williams v. City of LaGrange, 213 Ga. 241 ( 98 S.E.2d 417) (1957); Johnston v. Clayton County, 222 Ga. 39 (1) ( 148 S.E.2d 417) (1966). Moreover, in condemnation cases under Art. 3 of Title 22, the Article under which the condemnor in Woodside v. City of Atlanta, supra, 214 Ga., was proceeding, the condemnee may challenge the condemnor's right to the taking on appeal.

  3. Gibson v. McWhirter

    198 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. 1973)   Cited 2 times
    In Gibson, the Court held that by making a provision for the payment of his debts, the testator had in effect directed that the debts be paid out of the gross estate rather than out of the residuum.

    1. Inasmuch as Division 3 of this opinion, infra, supports a judgment of affirmance, no ruling is made or required on any issue of whether the appeal is subject to dismissal as premature or not involving a properly certified interlocutory order. See City of Hawkinsville v. Williams, 185 Ga. 396 (1) ( 195 S.E. 162); Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (1) ( 67 S.E.2d 713); Hunter v. Ogletree, 212 Ga. 543, 544 ( 93 S.E.2d 717); Johnston v. Clayton County Water Authority, 222 Ga. 39 (4) ( 148 S.E.2d 417); Hodges v. Thibadeau, 122 Ga. App. 334 (2) ( 177 S.E.2d 127). 2. It is unnecessary to consider the third and fourth enumerations, the appellant having conceded by brief that the only issue for determination is the construction of the will.

  4. Austin Enterprises v. Dekalb County

    149 S.E.2d 461 (Ga. 1966)   Cited 8 times

    In such circumstances, there was no attempt to condemn the property for purely private purposes. See McDaniel v. City of Columbus, 91 Ga. 462 ( 17 S.E. 1011); Johnston v. Clayton County Water Authority, 222 Ga. 39 ( 148 S.E.2d 417). (b) The appellant contends that the acts of the county commissioners were ultra vires since Ga. L. 1949, p. 1590, did not specifically authorize them.

  5. Wrege v. Cobb County

    416 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    421 F.2d 1397, cert. den. 398 U.S. 905." Id. at 868; see also Johnston v. Clayton County Water Auth., 222 Ga. 39 (1) ( 148 S.E.2d 417) (1966). The same logic applies here and appellants are estopped to protest Cobb County's right to condemn.

  6. City of Jonesboro v. Water Authority

    222 S.E.2d 76 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    Code Ann. § 87-802 (b). See Johnston v. Clayton County Water Authority, 222 Ga. 39 ( 148 S.E.2d 417). Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Revenue Bond Law also authorized municipalities and public authorities "To make all contracts" (Code Ann. § 87-803 (e)) we cannot interpret this legislation as allowing changes in contracts excepting in accordance with the provisions contained in such agreements.

  7. Dept. of Transportation v. Livaditis

    199 S.E.2d 573 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 15 times

    The Supreme Court has consistently applied this rule in dealing with the public or private character of a given situation. Rogers v. Toccoa Electric Power Co., 163 Ga. 919 (4b) ( 137 S.E. 272); Hightower v. Chattahoochee c. R., 218 Ga. 122, 124 ( 126 S.E.2d 664); Johnston v. Clayton County Water Auth., 222 Ga. 39, 42 ( 148 S.E.2d 417); Austin Enterprises v. DeKalb County, 222 Ga. 232, 233 ( 149 S.E.2d 461). The findings with regard to any prior use of a road, either public or private, would not be decisive.

  8. Hodges v. Thibadeau

    177 S.E.2d 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    2. There being a judgment of affirmance, no ruling is made on the motion to dismiss the appeal. City of Hawkinsville v. Williams, 185 Ga. 396 (1) ( 195 S.E. 162); Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (1) ( 67 S.E.2d 713); Hunter v. Ogletree, 212 Ga. 543, 544 ( 93 S.E.2d 717); Johnston v. Clayton County Water Authority, 222 Ga. 39 (4) ( 148 S.E.2d 417). Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

  9. Robinson v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

    306 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. Ga. 1969)   Cited 5 times

    Further, the plaintiffs are estopped under Georgia law, by their acceptance of payment of the award, to contest the condemnation proceedings. See Johnston v. Clayton County Water Authority, 222 Ga. 39, 148 S.E.2d 417 (1966); Williams v. City of La Grange, 213 Ga. 241, 98 S.E.2d 617 (1957); Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Bibb Brick Co., 149 Ga. 38, 99 S.E. 126 (1919) (and cases therein cited). The Georgia statute, Ga. Code Ann. § 36-602 (rev. 1962), cited by plaintiffs for the proposition that the acceptance of the amount shall not prevent them from prosecuting an appeal, is not relevant to this proceeding, which is not an appeal.