Lámar v. Urban Renewal Agency of City of Reno
Nevada Supreme Court
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
- Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- City of Ottumwa v. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1960
3Cited by7 opinions
- McCarran International Airport v. SisolakNevada Supreme Court · 2006
- Valley Electric Ass'n v. OverfieldNevada Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. DavisHawaii Supreme Court · 1972
- State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. CarterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Manchester Housing Authority v. BelcourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.