49 C.F.R. § 24.303

Related nonresidential eligible expenses

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The following expenses, in addition to those provided by § 24.301 for moving personal property, shall be provided if the agency determines that they are actual, reasonable, and necessary:

(a) Connection to available utilities from the replacement site's property line to improvements at the replacement site. (See appendix A to this part, Section 24.303(a).)

(b) Professional services performed prior to the purchase or lease of a replacement site to determine its suitability for the displaced person's business operation including, but not limited to, soil testing or feasibility and marketing studies (excluding any fees or commissions directly related to the purchase or lease of such site). At the discretion of the agency a reasonable pre-approved hourly rate may be established. (See appendix A to this part, section 24.303(b).)

(c) Impact fees and one-time assessments for anticipated heavy utility usage, as determined necessary by the agency. (See appendix A to this part, section 24.303(c).)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: The Kroger Co. v. Reg'l Airport Auth. of Louisville & Jefferson Cnty., 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Kroger Co. v. Reg'l Airport Auth. of Louisville & Jefferson Cnty., 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “” The RAA did not clearly and prejudicially violate the URA and its regulations by construing 49 C.F.R. § 24.303 (a)(6) to exclude expenses for permits related to the construction of Kroger’s new site.”

In Re Relocation Benefits of James Bros. Furniture, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Hypothetical Storage Costs 49 C.F.R. § 24.303 (a) (2000) provides that any “displaced person * * * is entitled to payment for such actual moving and related expenses, as the Agency determines to be reasonable and necessary.”

The M/V Cape Ann v. United States, 199 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 1999). · cites it 5× “Of the $3900 in moving expenses, $2000 in search related expenses were subject to a $1000 regulatory cap reducing the total moving expenses to $2900.”

In Re Relocation Benefits of Wilkins Pontiac, Inc., 530 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “The first argument is that 49 C.F.R. § 24.303 (a)(14) (1991), granting the displaced entity entitlement to payment for “[o]ther moving-related expenses that are not listed as ineligible under § 24.”

Portland Nat. Gas Transmission Sys. v. 4.83 Acres of Land, 26 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.H. 1998). “Martin’s reading of the regulation is not consistent with the meaning of “personal property” implied in the regulatory provision cited in the definition relating to the payment for moving expenses for any “farm operation which qualifies as a displaced person,’.”

Jensen Field Relocation Claims Jensen Field, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, 817 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). “49 C.F.R. § 24.303 (c) (1997). That self-move regulation was revised in 2005, and the revised version is applicable to this *736 case.”

Steve A. Baldwin, as Rep. of the Joan A. Baldwin Fam. Trust, Agreement; The Steve A. Baldwin Fam. Trust; The Alton Baldwin Fam., Trust Agreement; & Baldwin Enter. v. Arkansas Dep't Of, Transp., 2025 Ark. App. 114 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “) The Baldwins point to 49 C.F.R. § 24.303 in support of their claim.”

The M v. (1st Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “" 49 C.F.R. 24.303(13). The provision applies to fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to locate a site, and they could arguably apply to similar fees paid to an attorney.”

Rose v. City of Burlington (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “, Payment for Actual Reasonable Moving and Related Expenses—Non-residential Moves, 49 C.F.R. § 24.303 (1989). The inclusion of a general term promising the benefits of part 24 is, therefore, not redundant or proof that the inclusion of such language in Section 4 and 6 was.”

Torrente v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 603 S.E.2d 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). “49 CFR § 24.303 (a) (13). 49 CFR § 24.305 (d), (h).”

Advance Reproduction Co., Inc. v. United States of Am. & United States Gen. Servs. Admin., 110 F.3d 63 (6th Cir. 1997). “" The General Services Administration adhered to its initial determination and sent Advance a letter informing it of the cap on reestablishment expense reimbursement and explaining that "[p]hysical changes to the real property at the replacement location of the business are not…”

Portland Nat. Gas v. Martin, et al (D.N.H. 1998). “Martin’s reading of the regulation is not consistent with the meaning of “personal property” implied in the regulatory provision cited in the definition relating to the payment for moving expenses for any “farm operation which qualifies as a displaced person,” 49 C.F.R. § 24.303…”

— 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(13) — 1 case

The M v. (1st Cir. 1999). “" 49 C.F.R. 24.303(13). The provision applies to fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to locate a site, and they could arguably apply to similar fees paid to an attorney.”

— 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a)(13) — 1 case

— 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a)(3) — 2 cases

— 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a)(6) — 1 case

The Kroger Co. v. Reg'l Airport Auth. of Louisville & Jefferson Cnty., 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002). “” The RAA did not clearly and prejudicially violate the URA and its regulations by construing 49 C.F.R. § 24.303 (a)(6) to exclude expenses for permits related to the construction of Kroger’s new site.”

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.