SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. ROBERT DONALD GARRETT, SR.

FIRST DIVISION
                              BARNES, P. J.,
                          MARKLE and HODGES, JJ.

                   NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
                   physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
                   days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
                              https://www.gaappeals.us/rules



                                                                     April 15, 2026




In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
 A26A0274, A26A0275. GARRETT et al. v. SANDERSVILLE
     RAILROAD COMPANY et al.; and vice versa.

      BARNES, Presiding Judge.

      These companion appeals are taken from the trial court’s affirmance of the

Georgia Public Service Commission (“PSC”)’s approval of the Sandersville Railroad

Company’s petition to obtain the privately owned land at issue by condemnation. On

appeal in Case No. A26A0275, members of the Garrett, Smith, Reed, and Briggs

families (“the landowners”) argue that the trial court erred in affirming the PSC’s

decision because the proposed taking is not an authorized “public use” and because

the PSC violated the law in making its findings and conclusions. In the cross-appeal,

Case No. A26A0274, the Railroad argues that the trial court erred when it stayed the

enforcement of its order pending appeal. We affirm in both cases.
      A superior court is authorized to reverse or modify the final decision of the PSC

only under the circumstances laid out in the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act,

OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq., as follows:

      The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to
      the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the
      decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The
      court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the
      appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings,
      inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1)[i]n violation of
      constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) [i]n excess of the statutory
      authority of the agency; (3) [m]ade upon unlawful procedure; (4)
      [a]ffected by other error of law; (5) [c]learly erroneous in view of the
      reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6)
      [a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
      unwarranted exercise of discretion.


OCGA § 50-13-19 (h) (emphasis supplied). “Under the APA, the Commission is the

finder of fact and weighs the credibility of the evidence,” and the trial court “shall not

substitute its judgment for that of the [Commission] if there is any evidence to support

its findings.” Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n. v. Southern Bell, 254 Ga. 244, 246 (327 SE2d

726) (1985) (on appeal from a superior court’s grant of an interlocutory injunction as

to a PSC decision) (citation modified).

                                            2
      Thus viewed in favor of the PSC’s decision, the record shows that the Railroad

is a “short-line” company operating 10 miles of track in Sandersville, about 25 miles

from Sparta. The Railroad currently provides switching services connecting

businesses to the Norfolk Southern rail system and to the proposed route for the so-

called “Hanson Spur,” a new line that would run from the Hanson Quarry to the

CSXT rail system. The Spur would require a 200-foot swath across the landowners’

property, some of which has remained in these families for decades and which they

use for living, farming, timber harvesting, hunting, and other recreating.1

      After an unsuccessful effort to buy the properties, the Railroad asked the PSC

for permission to proceed with condemnation2 in March 2023 for the “public

purpose” of economic redevelopment in Hancock County. The Railroad’s amended




      1
       For example, a Smith great-grandmother was born into slavery on property
now owned by her descendants, and one of the Garretts has lived on his family’s
property for 72 of his 76 years.
      2
        See Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 515-16-16-.01 - .03 (repealed as of Oct. 20, 2025)
(requiring Commission approval before the filing of a condemnation action concerning
the “construction of rail facilities”; if the PSC determines that the condemnation
serves a “public purpose,” the railroad is authorized to file a condemnation action in
superior court).
                                          3
petition repeated this claim and added the names of several prospective shippers for

the Spur.

       After the hearing officer required the Railroad to produce documents as to

costs, rates, and community support, a hearing was held in November 2023 at which

the landowners’ expert witness pointed out the lack of any economic feasibility study

and drew the conclusion that the Spur would take decades to recover its costs and was

not economically feasible. In response, the Railroad’s representative provided some

capital cost estimates and testified that the company had “a good handle on [its]

costs,” that he “feel[s] like [he] knows [his] business,” and that he just “kn[e]w it’s

going to work.” In the course of the hearing, the Railroad shifted its justification of the

Spur from economic development to providing a “channel[] of trade,” which

amounts to a “public use” under OCGA § 22-1-1 (9) (A) (iii) of the eminent domain

statutes, OCGA § 22-1-1 et seq., as amended in 2017. See Ga. L. 2017, § 22, p. 774.

       After the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer filed an “initial

decision” that the Spur was necessary for the accommodation of the Railroad’s

business, which was “providing the transportation service of connecting industries by

rail and connecting rail traffic with larger rail networks.” The hearing officer credited


                                            4
evidence that without the Spur, the Railroad could not offer connections with the

CSXT rail system, and that five of its current and prospective customers wanted the

service proposed by construction of the Spur. The hearing officer also found that the

Spur was “reasonably expected to have cash flow sufficient to continue as an ongoing

concern” and that it would amount to a public use, both as an aid in the functioning

of a public utility and as a channel of trade.

      The PSC affirmed, adopting the hearing officer’s decision in its entirety. Both

parties filed for judicial review by the Fulton County Superior Court, which also

affirmed the PSC’s decision, finding (inter alia) that the Spur was necessary for the

proper accommodation of the Railroad’s business; that the Spur served a “public

purpose” because it would provide for the functioning of the Railroad as a utility,

“and separately because it will open a channel of trade” (emphasis in original); and

that the PSC’s decision was consistent with the law. The trial court continued its

earlier stay of any further condemnation proceedings pending further appeal,

however, “out of an abundance of caution” and given “the great impact upon [the

landowners] and their homesteads[.]”




                                            5
      The landowners then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which

transferred the cases to this Court. See OCGA § 50-13-20 (providing for appellate

“review of any final judgment of the superior court” under the APA). In its transfer

order, our Supreme Court specifically found that the landowners had “made no

challenge to the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance, or constitutional

provision” and that the trial court “did not construe – or perform any independent

analysis of the original public meaning of – any constitutional provision[.]” We

therefore limit our analysis to the statutory questions ruled on by the trial court. See

Woods v. State, 310 Ga. 358, 359 (850 SE2d 735) (2020).

                                 Case No. A26A0275

      1. The landowners first argue that the PSC and the trial court erred in finding

that the Spur amounts to a “public use” sufficient to justify condemnation. This

assertion requires us to consider the extensive statutory context.

      Under OCGA § 46-8-120 (a), a railroad is authorized

      (1) To reconstruct its lines or tracks, to build one or more additional
      main tracks, to relocate any line or portions of a line, and to build, as a
      substitute for trestles, embankments upon which tracks may be laid or to
      widen cuts where necessary for proper construction or maintenance;


                                           6
      (2) For obtaining gravel and other material, to take as much land as may
      be necessary for the purpose of construction, operation, and
      maintenance of such road;


      (3) To cut any trees that may be in any danger of falling on the tracks or
      obstructing the right of way, making compensation therefor as provided
      by law;


      (4) To build and maintain such additional depots, tracks, and terminal
      facilities as may be necessary for the proper accommodation of the
      business of the company; and


      (5) To construct, maintain, and operate tracks for the purpose of
      connecting two or more lines of railroad operated by the same company
      not more than ten miles apart.


And under OCGA § 46-8-121, a railroad seeking to construct new facilities on land it

does not own “may” acquire the land by condemnation, “provided that the right of

condemnation . . . shall not be exercised until the commission, under such rules of

procedure as it may provide, first approves the taking of the property.”3


      3
         See Dept. of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 124, 125 (3) (337 SE2 327)(1985)
(Art. I, Sec. III, Par. I of the Georgia Constitution, recognizing the state’s power of
eminent domain, “relates by its own terms to private property” and “serves to ratify
the limitation placed upon the state’s inherent right of eminent domain by the
individual citizens’ right to own property”).
                                            7
      The principal question posed in this appeal is whether the Railroad’s proposed

Spur amounts to a “public use,” a term from OCGA § 22-1-2, which provides:

      (a) The right of eminent domain is the right of this state, through its
      regular organization, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its
      dominion over any portion of the soil of this state on account of public
      exigency and for the public good. . . . Notwithstanding any other
      provisions of law, except as provided in Code Section 22-1-15
      [concerning “blighted property”], neither this state nor any political
      subdivision thereof nor any other condemning authority shall use
      eminent domain unless it is for public use. Public use is a matter of law to be
      determined by the court and the condemnor bears the burden of proof.


(Citation modified.) And OCGA § 22-1-1 (9) (A) defines “public use” as including

“(i) [t]he possession, occupation, or use of the land by the general public or by state

or local governmental entities; (ii) [t]he use of land for the creation or functioning of

public utilities; [or] (iii) [t]he opening of roads, the construction of defenses, or the

providing of channels of trade or travel.” (Citation modified.) The same statute specifies

that “[t]he public benefit of economic development shall not constitute a public use.”

Id. at (9) (B) (emphasis supplied). And OCGA § 22-1-1 (10) defines a “public utility”

as




                                            8
      any publicly, privately, or cooperatively owned line, facility, or system
      for producing, transmitting, or distributing communications, power,
      electricity, light, heat, gas, oil products, water, steam, clay, waste, storm
      water not connected with highway drainage, and other similar services
      and commodities . . . which directly or indirectly serve the public. ... This
      term shall also include common carriers and railroads.


(Emphasis supplied.)

      As the landowners concede, “the fact that private interests may benefit from

[a] taking does not negate the public character of the condemnation.” As our Supreme

Court held long ago, moreover, “the public nature of a siding or spur track does not

depend on the number of people that it accommodates, or who uses it, but rests upon

the fact that everybody who has occasion to use it may lawfully and of right do so.”

Harrold Bros. v. Americus, 142 Ga. 686, 688 (83 SE2d 534) (1914); see also Hightower

v. Chattahoochee I. R., 218 Ga. 122, 124-125 (2) (126 SE2d 664) (1962) (even when a

railroad had only one prospective customer for a proposed rail line, the Court was

required to “keep in mind the prospective as well as the presently planned use” of the

railroad’s facilities; a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the property

owner’s request for an injunction because “the present benefit of only one industry



                                           9
. . . does not necessarily negative the public character of the use”) (quotation marks

omitted).

      Here, the evidence summarized above was sufficient to support the decisions

of the hearing officer, the PSC, and the trial court that the Spur would amount to a

“channel of trade” and thus constituted a “public use.” Specifically, the Railroad

presented evidence that it would allow anyone who contracts with it to use the Spur,

that the Spur will offer connection to the CSXT rail network in the area for the first

time, and that the Railroad could generate revenue immediately upon completion of

the Spur. As we recently repeated,

      [j]udicial review of an administrative decision requires the court to
      determine that the agency’s findings of fact are supported by any
      evidence and to examine the soundness of the conclusions of law that are
      based upon the findings of fact. A reviewing court shall not substitute its
      judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of
      fact. Our duty is not to review whether the record supports the superior
      court’s decision but whether the record supports the final decision of the
      administrative agency.


Sawnee Elec. Membership Corp. v. Pub. Svc. Comm’n., 371 Ga. App. 267, 268-269 (899

SE2d 708) (2024) (affirming the PSC’s decision that an electric vehicle charging



                                            10
station was utilized by only one “consumer” and was permissible under the “large

load” exception of the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act) (citation modified).

      As we recently observed in another case requiring deference to a factfinder,

“were we to trade places . . . and sit as the trier of fact, we may very well have weighed

the evidence differently and reached a different outcome.” Junior v. Graham, 374 Ga.

App. 497, 501 (911 SE2d 241) (2025). But “that is not our job, and we lack the

authority to substitute out judgment” for that made by the PSC here. See id. On this

record, the PSC did not err when it concluded that the Spur amounted to a “public

use” authorizing the PSC to exercise the State’s power of eminent domain to

condemn the properties at issue. OCGA § 22-1-2 (a). It follows that the trial court did

not err in affirming the PSC’s decision. Sawnee Elec., 371 Ga. App. at 274 (2)

(affirming the trial court and the PSC when there was some evidence to support the

PSC’s conclusions). The only remaining remedy for the landowners must lie with

either the General Assembly, which passed the statutory scheme laid out above, or the

public, who elect the members of the PSC charged with applying that scheme. See

OCGA § 46-2-1 (a) (providing for the election of five PSC members).




                                            11
      2. The landowners also argue that the Railroad’s initial failure to comply with

the Commission’s subpoena and the hearing officer’s failure to “fully enforce” that

subpoena “severely diminished” their right to present evidence against the Railroad.

The landowners have not pointed to any specific evidence in support of this

contention, however, and thus have not shown that they were prejudiced by the

hearing officer’s handling of the evidence in the case, which included an order that the

Railroad produce additional evidence as to costs, rates, and community support.

There was no error here. See Pate v. Sadlock, 345 Ga. App. 591, 596 (2) (814 SE2d

760) (2018) (mother failed to show an abuse of discretion in a trial court’s bar on

testimony at hearing when she did not make any proffer of testimony she would have

offered).

      3. In light of our holdings in favor of the PSC’s decision, the landowners’

contention that they are owed attorney fees and costs under OCGA § 22-1-12 (1) lacks

merit. See id. (authorizing award of “reasonable costs and expenses,” including

“reasonable attorney [and other] fees,” if “[t]he final judgment is that the

condemning authority cannot acquire the real property by condemnation”).

                                 Case No. A26A0274


                                           12
      4. In the companion appeal, which was docketed in this Court before the

docketing of the landowners’ appeal on the merits, the Railroad argues that the trial

court erred when it stayed further proceedings, including the filing of a condemnation

petition pursuant to OCGA § 22-1-2 (a), pending appeal.4

      As our Supreme Court has noted, subsection (d) of OCGA § 50-13-19,

governing judicial review of an administrative agency’s decision, “provides that filing

of a petition for judicial review does not stay the agency decision but that ‘the agency

may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay upon appropriate terms for good

cause shown.’” Southern Bell, 254 Ga. at 247, quoting OCGA § 50-13-19 (d) (emphasis

supplied). Here, the trial court was functioning as an appellate court when it reviewed

the PSC’s decision, and we cannot say that it abused its discretion when it determined

that a stay pending appeal was “good cause” under these circumstances, which

involve what it assessed as the “great impact” of the PSC’s decision on the

landowners. See Green Bull Ga. Partners v. Register, 301 Ga. 472, 474-475 (801 SE2d

843) (2017) (affirming both the trial court’s setting aside of an interlocutory injunction


      4
        Shortly after docketing in this Court, we denied the Railroad’s motion to
expedite the appeals and to lift the stay because “the [Railroad] has not shown the
existence of extraordinary circumstances that might justify” either remedy.
                                            13
and its entry of an injunction pending the resolution of an appeal as within its

discretion; “that the trial court found the case close enough to warrant an injunction

pending appeal – notwithstanding its determination that an interlocutory injunction

pending final judgment was not appropriate – is unremarkable”).

      Judgments affirmed. Markle and Hodges, JJ., concur.




                                          14