Lovell v. Deptartment of Transportation

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lovell v. Deptartment of Transportation

370 S.E.2d 27, 187 Ga. App. 259, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 619

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 26, 1988

Docket76218

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 370 S.E.2d 27 (Lovell v. Deptartment of Transportation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lovell v. Deptartment of Transportation, 370 S.E.2d 27, 187 Ga. App. 259, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellee-condemnor filed a declaration of its taking of a small strip of land from a large parcel which belonged to appellant-condemnee. Appellant was dissatisfied with the amount of estimated just and adequate compensation paid into the registry of the superior court by appellee and he filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-14. Accordingly, a jury trial was conducted on the issue of the value of the property taken, and a verdict in the amount of $5,000 was returned. Appellant appeals from the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

In his sole enumeration, appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving one of appellee’s requests to charge. However, the only [260]*260objection to the charge that is now raised by appellant on appeal differs from the objection to the charge that was raised by him in the trial court. “Review of a charge on appeal is limited strictly to the grounds of objection stated at the trial. [Cit.]” Revbar Corp. v. Marthaler, 180 Ga. App. 559, 560 (1) (349 SE2d 795) (1986). See also McChargue v. Black Grading Contractors, 122 Ga. App. 1, 4 (2) (176 SE2d 212) (1970). “In the trial court appellant did not make the objections to the charge which [he] raises on appeal. Finding no substantial error harmful as a matter of law, we reject [his] complaints concerning the charge. [Cit.]” Cassier v. Golden, 151 Ga. App. 618, 619 (2) (260 SE2d 750) (1979). See also McFarland v. Kim, 156 Ga. App. 781, 784 (5) (275 SE2d 364) (1980).

Decided May 26, 1988. Ernest H. Woods III, for appellant. John A. Dickerson, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carley, Judge.

Appellee-condemnor filed a declaration of its taking of a small strip of land from a large parcel which belonged to appellant-condemnee. Appellant was dissatisfied with the amount of estimated just and adequate compensation paid into the registry of the superior court by appellee and he filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-14. Accordingly, a jury trial was conducted on the issue of the value of the property taken, and a verdict in the amount of $5,000 was returned. Appellant appeals from the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

In his sole enumeration, appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving one of appellee’s requests to charge. However, the only [260]*260objection to the charge that is now raised by appellant on appeal differs from the objection to the charge that was raised by him in the trial court. “Review of a charge on appeal is limited strictly to the grounds of objection stated at the trial. [Cit.]” Revbar Corp. v. Marthaler, 180 Ga. App. 559, 560 (1) (349 SE2d 795) (1986). See also McChargue v. Black Grading Contractors, 122 Ga. App. 1, 4 (2) (176 SE2d 212) (1970). “In the trial court appellant did not make the objections to the charge which [he] raises on appeal. Finding no substantial error harmful as a matter of law, we reject [his] complaints concerning the charge. [Cit.]” Cassier v. Golden, 151 Ga. App. 618, 619 (2) (260 SE2d 750) (1979). See also McFarland v. Kim, 156 Ga. App. 781, 784 (5) (275 SE2d 364) (1980).

Decided May 26, 1988. Ernest H. Woods III, for appellant. John A. Dickerson, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 S.E.2d 27, 187 Ga. App. 259, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovell-v-deptartment-of-transportation-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack