Legal Opinion
McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. Hamilton
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided April 16, 1974No. 45904PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BERRY, Justice:
The issue presented herein is whether the trial court’s order requiring McAlester Urban Renewal Authority [the Authority] to pay appellees an attorney fee and interest thereon should be reversed.
The Authority instituted this action to condemn real property belonging to appel-lees. The commissioners fixed the value of the property at $9,705. Appellees demanded trial by jury. The jury awarded $15,560 as damages.
Appellees’ attorney filed a motion requesting the trial court to award appellees a reasonable attorney fee. The motion was filed pursuant to 11 O.S.1971 § 1663(f).
Section…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hoffman v. MorganSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
- Smith v. OgleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
- McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. CuzalinaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
- McManus v. BurrowsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
3Cited by17 opinions
- Fleet v. Sanguine, Ltd.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Rout v. Crescent Public Works AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
- Walker v. St. Louissan Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- National Educators Life Insurance Co. v. Apache Lanes, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976
- Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.