lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
DEAN et al. v. OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION.
72467.
SOGNIER, Judge.
Condemnation. Cherokee Superior Court. Before Judge Gault.
Oglethorpe Power Corporation condemned an easement across the property of Joe H. Dean and Louella Dean for a power transmission line. Joe H. Dean died subsequent to the filing of the petition and by stipulation of the parties, his widow, Louella Dean, was substituted as sole condemnee. The jury returned a verdict in favor of condemnee for $10,000 and this appeal ensued.
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by granting appellee's motion in limine. Appellee moved the trial court to exclude all evidence of damages concerning animals, persons and property incurred "before, during, or after construction of said power line which should properly be subject to a suit for separate damages, if in fact any have occurred." Appellant does not controvert that such evidence of damages from negligent construction would be properly excluded. See DeKalb County v. Cowan, 151 Ga. App. 753, 755 (10) (261 SE2d 478) (1979). However, appellant contends that the trial court, by granting the motion in limine, improperly excluded her evidence which showed that erosion, caused by the proper constructiOn of the power line, had resulted in permanent damage affecting the fair market value of the property.
2. Appellant's enumeration contending error in the trial court's charge as to consequential damages and benefits in the absence of any evidence of consequential benefits to the remainder property was decided adversely to her in German v. Dept. of Transp., 162 Ga. App. 785 (293 SE2d 50) (1982) and Gardner v. Dept. of Transp., 165 Ga. App. 300 (1) (299 SE2d 741) (1983).
3. Appellant contends the trial Court erred by admitting evidence by appellee's expert witness after the close of appellant's case. Appellant argues that the evidence presented was not for the stated purpose of rebuttal but rather for the improper purpose of further emphasizing appellee's case in chief. Our review of the testimony reveals that its major thrust was to rebut facts asserted by appellant's expert witness and we find no abuse of the trial court's discretiOn in admitting the testimony. See generally Newman v. Booker & Co., 133 Ga. App. 209 (1) (2) (210 SE2d 329) (1974); Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Churchill, 113 Ga. 12 (3) (38 SE 336) (1901).
Fred D. Bentley, Sr., for appellee.
James Garland Peek, J. Corbett Peek, Jr., for appellants.
DECIDED JUNE 27, 1986.
Thursday May 21 14:56 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com