Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation

Mr. Cork has represented clients in numerous condemnation matters and associated with other lawyers on such cases. He has been at the forefront of developing the law in cases of business losses and temporary takings.

Published Texts and Articles

Eminent Domain in Georgia Jurisprudence 2d ed. (Thompson-West, 2008).
Could Kelo happen here?, Smart Business Atlanta, December 2005, p. 22.
Eminent domain strategies, Smart Business Atlanta, August 2005, p. 22.
A Critical Review of the Law of Business Loss Claims in Georgia Eminent Domain Jurisprudence, 51 Mercer L. Rev. 11 (1999). Cited in City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc., 302 Wis.2d 599, 734 N.W.2d 428 (2007).
Contributor to Condemnation Decisions, Survey of 1997-1998, for 1998 ABA Annual Meeting of Real Property Division (8/3/98).
Eminent Domain in 2 Georgia Jurisprudence, Ch. 19, pp. 245-455, Lawyers Coop. Publ. (now Thompson-West) 1995.

Seminar Presentations

Eminent Domain - Law and Update, ICLE 6th Annual General Practice & Trial Section Institute, Amelia Island, March 16, 2007.
Road and Access Law, National Business Institute. Atlanta, September 7, 2000.
Business Damages in Georgia, Meeting of the Condemnation Law Committee of the Real Property Division of the American Bar Association, Atlanta, August 9, 1999.

Representative Appellate Cases

Hillman v. Dept. of Transp., 257 Ga. 338, 359 S.E.2d 637 (1987) (holding that condemnees are entitled to recover for damages caused by temporary takings as a matter of constitutional law; rejecting a trend in Court of Appeals decisions that prohibited a land owner from recovering damages to the remaining property caused by the taking of a temporary construction easement).
Harper Investments, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 251 Ga. App. 521, 554 S.E.2d 619 (2001) (establishing that rights of access to property survive in spite of the enactment of commercial driveway regulations and arguably restrictive “temporary” right-of-way deeds; holding landowner was entitled to damages for taking of driveway access although driveway permits were expressly "temporary" and subject to rescission).
DOT v. Hillside Motors, Inc., 192 Ga. App. 637 (1989) (holding that used car seller was entitled to loss of income because temporary construction made access difficult and deposited dirt and dust on the owner's vehicles, and that such damages should be awarded even though there was no proven history of profitability of the business).