Short answer. The court may accept the report and render judgment on it, recommit it to the commissioners for further findings, set it aside and appoint new commissioners, or accept it in part and reject it in part — whatever secures the property for the plaintiff and just compensation for the owner.

What the law says

Upon the expiration of the period of ten days referred to in the preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts; or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or it may accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.

Rule 67, Section 8 — Action upon commissioners' report. Read the full provision →

When the court can act

The court is not necessarily stuck waiting out the full ten-day objection period. It may act once that period expires, or even earlier if all the interested parties have already filed their objections or their statements agreeing with the report, letting the case move forward without unnecessary delay when everyone has already weighed in. Either way, the court still holds a hearing before acting, so the parties get a chance to be heard on the report's contents.

The court's menu of options

After a hearing, the court has several paths available: it may accept the report and render judgment in accordance with it; for cause shown, recommit the report to the commissioners for further findings of fact; set the report aside entirely and appoint new commissioners; or accept part of the report while rejecting another part. That range of options gives the court a proportionate response, from a full do-over to a targeted fix of just the flawed portion.

The guiding objective

Whichever option the court chooses, the aim is to make such order or render such judgment as will secure to the plaintiff the property essential to exercising its right of expropriation, while securing to the defendant just compensation for the property taken — the flexibility exists to serve that dual objective, not to arbitrarily favor either side. A court that recommits or rejects a report is still working toward that same end, not simply restarting the case from scratch.

Why the court is given this range of choices

A commissioners' report is advisory rather than automatically binding: the court reviews it and can act on the whole, part, or none of it depending on how sound the findings actually are. That built-in check protects both sides from having to live with a flawed valuation simply because a single report happened to reach that number, since neither the government nor the owner has a right to a particular outcome from the commissioners alone.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.