Department of Transp. v. Hardin, No. 28311
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | MOBLEY |
| Citation | 201 S.E.2d 441,231 Ga. 359 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. N. A. HARDIN et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 28311 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1973 |
Page 441
v.
N. A. HARDIN et al.
Page 442
Syllabus by the Court
Where a limited access highway is constructed where no highway has been established, the landowner whose property is taken as a right of way for the highway does not have a right of access to the highway from his remaining property.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, G. Thomas Davis, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ken Stula, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Athens, for appellant.
Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Edwin Fortson, Athens, for appellees.
MOBLEY, Chief Justice.
The Department of Transportation, condemnor, appeals from the grant of the condemnees' motions to strike certain pleadings, to delay possession, and for summary judgment. Certificate for immediate review was signed by the trial judge.
The condemnor brought proceedings under Ga.L.1955, pp. [231 Ga. 360] 559-564 (Code Ann.Ch. 95-17A) to take described property for a limited access highway. It was alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that the highway being a limited access highway, there is no necessity of condemning rights of access to the highway except at points where the limited access highway may require the acquisition of access rights to existing roads, streets, or highways.
The condemnees moved to strike this allegation of paragraph 3; to delay possession of the right of way until the condemnor complied with the statute under which it was proceeding as to tendering the sum estimated to be due for the access rights; and to grant summary judgment that the right of access to the limited access highway for which the right of way is being condemned is a property right for which the condemness must be compensated.
The condemnor filed a written brief in opposition to these motions, in which it asserted that the grant of the motions would violate the Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. I, Par. II (Code Ann. § 2-5402), in that the payment of compensation for access rights to a limited access highway would be a donation or gratuity; would violate the Constitution, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XXIII (Code Ann. § 2-123), in that it would require the condemnor to plead and condemn that which it does not wish to plead and condemn; and would violate the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions, in that it would deprive the state and the taxpayers thereof of their property without due process of law.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aycock v. Calk, No. A97A1678
...subsequently to deny. State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966), rev'd on other grounds, Dept. of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441 (1973). When admissions in judicio conflict with evidence on the merits, the trial court, on summary judgment, can eith......
-
Hall v. State, No. 25769.
...been located, does not have the right of access possessed by a landowner abutting a conventional highway. See Dep't of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1973) (construing former Ga.Code Ann. § 95–1703a 9 now Ga.Code Ann. § 32–6–113); State Highway Comm'n v. McDonald'......
-
Morehead v. State Dept. of Roads, No. 39995
...783; Schnider v. State, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1; Winn v. United States, 9 Cir., 272 F.2d 282; Department of Transportation v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 201 S.E.2d 441; State v. Calkins, 50 Wash.2d 716, 314 P.2d 449; State ex rel. Morrison v. Thelberg, 87 Ariz. 318, 350 P.2d 988; State ex rel. ......
-
Hall v. South Dakota, #25769-rev & rem-SLZ
...n.4. 4. See State v. McDonald, 352 P.2d 343, 350 (Ariz. 1960); Schnider v. State, 241 P.2d 1, 2-3 (Cal. 1952); Dep't of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1973); Lehman v. Iowa State Highway Comm'n, 99 N.W.2d 404, 406 (Iowa 1959); Riddle v. State Highway Comm'n, 339 P......
-
Aycock v. Calk, No. A97A1678
...subsequently to deny. State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966), rev'd on other grounds, Dept. of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441 (1973). When admissions in judicio conflict with evidence on the merits, the trial court, on summary judgment, can eith......
-
Hall v. State, No. 25769.
...been located, does not have the right of access possessed by a landowner abutting a conventional highway. See Dep't of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1973) (construing former Ga.Code Ann. § 95–1703a 9 now Ga.Code Ann. § 32–6–113); State Highway Comm'n v. McDonald'......
-
Morehead v. State Dept. of Roads, No. 39995
...783; Schnider v. State, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1; Winn v. United States, 9 Cir., 272 F.2d 282; Department of Transportation v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 201 S.E.2d 441; State v. Calkins, 50 Wash.2d 716, 314 P.2d 449; State ex rel. Morrison v. Thelberg, 87 Ariz. 318, 350 P.2d 988; State ex rel. ......
-
Hall v. South Dakota, #25769-rev & rem-SLZ
...n.4. 4. See State v. McDonald, 352 P.2d 343, 350 (Ariz. 1960); Schnider v. State, 241 P.2d 1, 2-3 (Cal. 1952); Dep't of Transp. v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 361, 201 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1973); Lehman v. Iowa State Highway Comm'n, 99 N.W.2d 404, 406 (Iowa 1959); Riddle v. State Highway Comm'n, 339 P......