Constitución del Estado de Georgia

Artículo I. BILL OF RIGHTS · Artículo I. BILL OF RIGHTS · Sección III. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Art. I, Sec. III, Para. II. Private ways.

Vigente

Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

Una disposición constitucional que se muestra como vigente está vigente tal como está impresa en el volumen. Una decisión judicial puede hacer inaplicable una disposición impresa sin cambiar el volumen, y el volumen no registra eso.

El texto siguiente es la ley tal como la imprime el estado, en inglés.

In case of necessity, private ways may be granted upon just and adequate compensation being first paid by the applicant.

Las notas siguientes se imprimen con la sección, pero no son ley promulgada (O.C.G.A. § 1-1-1(c)). Se muestran aparte del texto.

Otras notas

1976 Constitution.: Art. I, Sec. III, Para. I.
the probate courts) or county comprivate way acquired by prescripother private ways sections.: A private way, created by necessary implication, was wholly distinct from a private way over the land of a stranger, also provided by former Code 1933, § 85-1401 (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-9-1), from ‘‘compulsory purchase and sale through the ordinary (now superior court)’’ under the procedure of former Code 1933, §§ 83-101 and 83-102 (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-9-40); and consequently this paragraph had no reference thereto. Calhoun v. Ozburn, 186 Ga. 569, 198 S.E. 706 (1938). Definition of necessity for purposes
of granting private way.: Cases of necessity do not arise except where the way sought to be laid out is absolutely indispensable to the applicant, as a means of reaching the applicant’s property. Chat-tanooga, Rome & S.R.R. v. Philpot, 112 Ga. 153, 37 S.E. 181 (1900); Gaines v. Lunsford, 120 Ga. 370, 47 S.E. 967 (1904). When property right is taken or
vested.: No property right is taken from a property owner, nor vested in a private way petitioner, until after all of the rights have been finally established, the compensation is paid, and the court makes such a ‘‘grant’’ by final judgment. Cline v. McMullan, 263 Ga. 321, 431 S.E.2d 368 (1993). Cotenancy interests in underlying
fee.: Condemnation of an easement against a party who has a cotenancy interest in the underlying fee is not prohibited as a matter of law, but is permissible in cases in which there is sufficient evidence establishing the ‘‘necessity’’ for acquisition of the easement and the exclusive use thereof. Benton v. Georgia Marble Co., 258 Ga. 58, 365 S.E.2d 413 (1988).
Mining or quarrying.: O.C.G.A. § 44-9-70’s ‘‘necessity’’ standard, which is based upon the successful operation of the applicant’s business of mining or quarrying, is a valid exercise of the General Assembly’s state constitutional authority with respect to the declaration of private ways of necessity. Benton v. Georgia Marble Co., 258 Ga. 58, 365 S.E.2d 413 (1988).

Leer la página oficial (el PDF del estado, abierto en la página de la que se leyó este texto).

Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

Texto leído de 2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf, Volumen V2, edición 2016, páginas 777 a 778; acción de fusión: annotated; SHA-256 del archivo 1b27199d8655.