In Garrett v. Sandersville R.R., No. A26A0274 (Apr. 15, 2026), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the state’s Public Service Commission’s approval of the railroad’s use of eminent domain to take property for a connector to the main rail line.

The court concluded that the taking qualified as a “public use” as that term is defined in Georgia’s eminent domain statute. Although there may be some private benefits, and the spur line may not actually be used by the public, what matters is that the line is available for the public’s use:

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.”

Slip op. at 9 (citation omitted). Here, the railroad showed that all are welcome:

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.

Slip op. at 10.

While that conclusion may not be all that unsurprising, we found this case interesting for the court’s conclusion that the question of public use (although here it is a question of the statute’s definition, the public use question is, ultimately, a question of the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions) is one to be decided by an agency, the PSC, and that the judiciary has a very limited role in reviewing the PSC’s conclusion:

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).

Slip op. at 11.

Don’t like this? Go change to the legislature and get it to change the required level of judicial deference under the administrative procedures act, concluded the court. This strikes us as odd because we thought it was courts that determined whether the other branches are complying with the constitution, not an agency like the PSC.

Garrett v. Sandersville R.R., No. A26A0274 (Ga. App. Apr. 15, 2026)