Legal Opinion

Lámar v. Urban Renewal Agency of City of Reno

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1968No. 5515PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Thompson, C. J.:

This is a consolidated appeal from judgments entered in five separate condemnation actions instituted by the Urban Renewal Agency. The main issue concerns attorney’s fees. Each condemnee-appellant asserts that he may recover a reasonable attorney’s fee from the condemnor as a matter of constitutional right and, in any event, by reason of Nevada statute. The district court in each case rejected that assertion. That court ruled correctly.

There is no constitutional right in the condemnee to recover his attorney’s fees as a part of the “just compensation”…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. City of Ottumwa v. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1960

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. McCarran International Airport v. SisolakNevada Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Valley Electric Ass'n v. OverfieldNevada Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. DavisHawaii Supreme Court · 1972
  4. State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. CarterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  5. Manchester Housing Authority v. BelcourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971

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