(3) (329 SE2d 514) (1985) (noting that in a condemnation proceeding, the jury establishes the property’s value and “[i]f it finds as fact that the condemnor underestimated the value of the land, the condemnor must pay more; if it finds as fact that the condemnor overestimated the value, the condemnee is not entitled to the proceeds of the government agency’s mistake”); OCGA § 32-3-19 (b) (“After the verdict of the jury, the court shall. . . enter judgment in favor of the condemnee and against the condemnor in the amount of such verdict, together with the accrued court costs, which judgment shall be immediately credited with the sum of money deposited by the condemnor with the declaration of taking. . . .”). 4 Boston Men’s Health Ct c., 237 Ga. App. 304, 308-09 (7) (514 SE2d 846) (1999) (<HOLDING>). 20 See Hancock v. Bryan Cty. Bd. of Ed., 240
holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding that although portion of trial courts jury charge was inapplicable any error in providing it was harmless in light of the fact that charge considered as a whole was not likely to confuse or mislead the jury holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error holding that whether a jury charge comments on weight of evidence is determined by looking at the jury charge as a whole not isolated statements