49 C.F.R. § 24.107
Certain litigation expenses
The owner of the real property shall be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, which the owner actually incurred because of a condemnation proceeding, if:
(a) The final judgment of the court is that the agency cannot acquire the real property by condemnation;
(b) The condemnation proceeding is abandoned by the agency other than under an agreed-upon settlement; or
(c) The court having jurisdiction renders a judgment in favor of the owner in an inverse condemnation proceeding or the agency effects a settlement of such proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Long v. State of S.D., 2017 SD 78 (S.D. 2017).
Long v. State of S.D., 2017 SD 78 (S.D. 2017). “]” Landowners further contend that 49 C.F.R. § 24.107 (2015) reinforces the State’s obligation to pay the Landowners’ inverse condemnation expenses.”
West Virginia Dep't of Transp. v. Dodson Mobile Homes Sales & Servs., Inc., 624 S.E.2d 468 (W. Va. 2005). “49 C.F.R. § 24.107 . Responding to the apparent ambiguity in these provisions of federal law, the lower court, through its April 15, 2004, and July 14, 2004, orders, concluded that the court was without authority to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Act.”
State ex rel. New Wen, Inc. v. Marchbanks (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4865 (Ohio 2020). “4654(c), a similar award is authorized for a plaintiff who prevails in an inverse- condemnation proceeding against the United States for the taking of property by a federal agency or for a plaintiff in such a proceeding that ends in a settlement; see also 49 C.F.R. 24.107. By…”
West Virginia Dep't of Transp., Div. of Highways v. Newton, 797 S.E.2d 592 (W. Va. 2017). “49 C.F.R. § 24.107 (2015). 4 As we have explained: [A] landowner’s action to recover just compensation for a taking by physical intrusion has come to be referred to as “inverse” or “reverse” condemnation [whereas a] “condemnation” proceeding is commonly understood to be an…”
Robinson v. State, 2001 UT 21 (Utah 2001). “APPLICABILITY OF 49 C.F.R. § 24.107 TO THE SETTLEMENT AT ISSUE T9 We first consider the question of whether 49 C.”
Randolph v. Missouri Highways & Transp. Comm'n, 224 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). “The Property Owners filed a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Judgment that included a request for attorneys’ fees under 49 C.F.R. 24.107 and prejudgment interest.”
City of Austin v. Travis Cnty. Landfill Co., 25 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App. 2000). “49 C.F.R § 24.107 (1998). The regulations define the term "Agency" as "the Federal Agency, State, State agency, or person that acquires real property," while the term "State agency" is defined as, among other things, "a political subdivision of a State.”
Bonanza, Inc. v. Carlson, 9 P.3d 541 (Kan. 2000). “” 49 C.F.R. § 24.107 (1999). As previously noted, the Kansas Act and the corresponding regulations were enacted to bring Kansas into compliance with the Federal Act.”
Salt Lake City v. Kunz, 2020 UT App 139 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). “See 49 C.F.R. § 24.107 (2005). But even assuming that regulation applies to the City because it receives federal funding, Owners are not entitled to litigation fees and costs under that regulation for one of the same reasons they are not entitled to litigation fees and costs…”
Kunz v. FAA (10th Cir. 2025). “” 49 C.F.R. § 24.107 (b). “policies” in § 4651.”
Pener v. King (Kan. 2017). “36-16-1 to Part 24 encompasses 49 C.F.R. § 24.107 (2015), which concerns litigation expenses and provides: "The owner of the real property shall be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, which the owner actually…”
WVDOT, WVDOH & Thomas J. Smith v. Victor Morton Echols, 827 S.E.2d 45 (W. Va. 2019). “§ 4651 (9) nor the State's argument related thereto in reaching its ultimate conclusion that the property owner was entitled to attorney's fees under 49 C.F.R. § 24.107 . As a result, we find the Dodson Court's apparent endorsement of the circuit court's method of determining…”
— 49 C.F.R. § 24.107(c) — 1 case
State ex rel. New Wen, Inc. v. Marchbanks (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4865 (Ohio 2020). “4654(c), a similar award is authorized for a plaintiff who prevails in an inverse- condemnation proceeding against the United States for the taking of property by a federal agency or for a plaintiff in such a proceeding that ends in a settlement; see also 49 C.F.R. 24.107. By…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.