Legal Opinion
State Highway Department v. Futch
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided May 18, 1964No. 40719PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Eberhardt, Judge.
1. In a condemnation case, the court is not authorized to charge that the jury may consider other potential uses to which the land taken could be put unless there is either evidence of other possible uses of the land or evidence from which the jury could infer some reasonable probability that the land could be used for other purposes. State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst, 109 Ga. App. 737; State Hwy. Dept. v. Godwin, 109 Ga. App. 740. There was no evidence of either here and the charge was erroneously given.
2. “[I]t is elementary that the measure of damages for property taken by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State Highway Department v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- State Highway Department v. WhitehurstCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- State Highway Department v. GodwinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Tift v. State Highway DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- Platt Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. SwinkMississippi Supreme Court · 1959
3Cited by9 opinions
- State Highway Department v. NobleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Piedmont Aviation, Inc. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State Highway Department v. RutlandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- State Highway Department v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- State Highway Department v. WhitehurstCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.