Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Franklin County, Georgia, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 341 F.2d 106
Feb. 2, 1965
J. E. Palmour, Gainesville, Ga., Andrew J. Hill, Jr., Lavonia, Ga., for appellant.
Richard N. Countiss, Dept. of Justice, Ramsey Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger P. Marquis, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Floyd M. Buford, U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., Sampson M. Culpepper, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and MOORE1 and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The road and bridge for which the commissioners awarded only nominal damages in this case were condemned in connection with the Hartwell Dam and Reservoir project. The bridge spanned Eastanollee Creek in Franklin County, Georgia; the road involved was 2,000 feet in length and joined the bridge at each end.
No prejudicial error appears in either the appointment of or the instructions to the commissioners, nor in the award itself. Any error in the District Court's instruction that fair market value was the proper measure of compensation, rather than the value of substitute facilities, see City of Fort Worth, Texas v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 217; and State of Washington v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 33, was rendered harmless by appellant's request before the commissioners for the substitute facilities measure, and by the application of that measure by the commissioners.
The appointment of commissioners by the court, although both parties had previously requested a jury trial, was justified by the character and location of the property condemned and by the necessity of inspecting the area as to which a need for substitute facilities was claimed. It affirmatively appears from the record that the commissioners surveyed the area affected before and after the taking. Moreover, the record warrants the conclusion that substitute facilities were unnecessary, and thus that appellant was entitled to nominal damages only.
Affirmed.
Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation