Department of Transportation v. Winston Container Co.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
PARKER, Judge.
The sole question presented is whether the court erred in denying defendant’s petition that it be awarded its attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees as part of the costs to be taxed against the plaintiff. We find no error.
At the outset we note that litigation expenses and costs, including those incurred by a landowner in a condemnation proceeding, may be taxed only if authorized by statute. City of Charlotte v. McNeely, 281 N.C. 684, 190 S.E. 2d 179 (1972). Such expenses incurred by the landowner do not constitute part of the “just compensation” required to be paid by the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. Bodcaw Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- City of Charlotte v. McNeelySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- United States v. 4.18 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Idaho County, State of Idaho, and Scott Stanford HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Board of Transportation v. RoysterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
3Cited by4 opinions
- Department of Transportation v. Charlotte Area Manufactured Housing, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
- Board of County Commissioners v. FerrebeeUtah Supreme Court · 1992
- Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City v. DaskalasCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
- Harrell v. STEVENS AND COMPANY, INC.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980