Klumok v. State Highway Dept., No. 44046
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | BELL |
| Citation | 167 S.E.2d 722,119 Ga.App. 505 |
| Parties | Sidney S. KLUMOK et al. v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 44046,No. 2 |
Page 722
v.
STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.
Rehearing Denied April 4, 1969. Certiorari Denied Sept. 9, 1969.
Page 723
Syllabus by the Court
Where land is condemned for use as a limited access highway, the condemnee whose land it divides is entitled to damages for loss of his right of access to and from the proposed highway, but this loss of access rights is merely an element of consequential damages to those portions of his land which are not taken.
Ray, Owens, Keil & Hirsch, Milton Hirsch, Columbus, for appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Kelly, Champion & Henson, Forrest L. Champion, Jr., Columbus, for appellee.
BELL, Presiding Judge.
The condemnees took this appeal from a judgment of the superior court after jury trial fixing compensation for land taken for a limited access highway.
1. It was not error to admit opinion testimony of several witnesses which would have authorized the jury to conclude that there was present a reasonable possibility or probability of a change in the existing zoning restrictions, which would have an appreciable influence on the market value of the remaining portions of the condemnee's property. The evidence, although in sharp conflict, authorized the court's instructions to the jury allowing them to consider the effect of possible rezoning. Civils v. Fulton County, 108 Ga.App. 793, 796, 134 S.E.2d 453.
2. 'The Legislature cannot bestow upon one of its boards the right to take or damage private property for public use without just and adequate compensation. We have seen that the right of the owner of land abutting upon a public highway to an easement of access is a property right, and such right is protected under the Constitution of this state.' State Hwy. Board v. Baxter, 167 Ga. 124, 134, 144 S.E.
Page 724
796; Clayton County v. Billups &c. Petroleum Co., 104 Ga.App. 778, 781, 123 S.E.2d 187. See also Woodside v. City of Atlanta, 214 Ga. 75, 83, 103 [119 Ga.App. 506] S.E.2d 108; Bowers v. Fulton County, 221 Ga. 731, 737, 146 S.E.2d 884, 20 A.L.R.3d 1066. The right of access accrues simultaneously with the taking. See Lumpkin v. State Hwy. Dept., 114 Ga.App. 145, 148, 150 S.E.2d 266. 'One of the rights of a landowner is to pass across a highway from one tract or parcel of his lands to another situated on the opposite side. Indeed,...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, No. 63591
...429; Mayor of Athens v. Gamma Delta Chapter House Corp., 86 Ga.App. 53, 70 S.E.2d 621. In Klumok, et al. v. State Highway Department, 119 Ga.App. 505, 167 S.E.2d 722, this Court, in discussing the effect of State Highway Department v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 made the following ......
-
Evans v. Dep't of Transp., No. A14A1795.
...only) (opinion testimony regarding probability of change in existing zoning restrictions was admissible); Klumok v. State Highway Dept., 119 Ga.App. 505(1), 167 S.E.2d 722 (1969) (same). That is the situation here with the opinion testimony of the DOT's real estate appraisers, and thus we c......
-
Moss v. Hall County Bd. of Com'rs, No. A90A0741
...property. See also Atlanta Warehouses v. Housing Auth. of Atlanta, 143 Ga.App. 588, 592, 239 S.E.2d 387, and Klumok v. State Hwy. Dept., 119 Ga.App. 505, 167 S.E.2d 722. However, the Page 494 Civils v. Fulton County, 108 Ga.App. 793, 134 S.E.2d 453, supra, decision is limited by the admonit......
-
Lee v. Department of Transp., No. 77348
...see, e.g., Department of Transp. v. Pilgrim, 175 Ga.App. 576, 578-579 (2 and 3), 333 S.E.2d 866 (1985); Klumok v. State Hwy. Dept., 119 Ga.App. 505(1), 167 S.E.2d 722 (1969), as evidence tending to show the impact of the taking on plans for the remaining property, and thus to exclude appell......
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, No. 63591
...429; Mayor of Athens v. Gamma Delta Chapter House Corp., 86 Ga.App. 53, 70 S.E.2d 621. In Klumok, et al. v. State Highway Department, 119 Ga.App. 505, 167 S.E.2d 722, this Court, in discussing the effect of State Highway Department v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 152 S.E.2d 557 made the following ......
-
Evans v. Dep't of Transp., No. A14A1795.
...only) (opinion testimony regarding probability of change in existing zoning restrictions was admissible); Klumok v. State Highway Dept., 119 Ga.App. 505(1), 167 S.E.2d 722 (1969) (same). That is the situation here with the opinion testimony of the DOT's real estate appraisers, and thus we c......
-
Moss v. Hall County Bd. of Com'rs, No. A90A0741
...property. See also Atlanta Warehouses v. Housing Auth. of Atlanta, 143 Ga.App. 588, 592, 239 S.E.2d 387, and Klumok v. State Hwy. Dept., 119 Ga.App. 505, 167 S.E.2d 722. However, the Page 494 Civils v. Fulton County, 108 Ga.App. 793, 134 S.E.2d 453, supra, decision is limited by the admonit......
-
Lee v. Department of Transp., No. 77348
...see, e.g., Department of Transp. v. Pilgrim, 175 Ga.App. 576, 578-579 (2 and 3), 333 S.E.2d 866 (1985); Klumok v. State Hwy. Dept., 119 Ga.App. 505(1), 167 S.E.2d 722 (1969), as evidence tending to show the impact of the taking on plans for the remaining property, and thus to exclude appell......