Legal Opinion

McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. Cuzalina

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 27, 1973No. 45421PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BERRY, Justice:

The McAlester Urban Renewal Authority commenced condemnation proceedings against the appellee to acquire appellee’s property for urban renewal purposes. Commissioners were appointed and fixed the value of the land, the appellee demanded a trial by jury, the jury fixed the amount of appellee’s recovery at an amount exceeding the amount fixed by the commissioners, and the trial court entered an order awarding reasonable attorney fees to the appellee’s attorney pursuant to 11 O.S.1971 § 1663(f).

The Authority appeals from the order awarding attorney fees contending the “just…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. State v. RothWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Isaacs v. Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
  4. Perry v. City of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1970
  5. Gano v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Root v. KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
  2. Daviscourt v. PeistrupCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
  3. McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
  4. Opinion No. 77-225 (1978) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1978
  5. Opinion No. 77-243 (1977) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API