not acquired by condemnation. A. Where a condemnation proceeding is instituted by any person, agency, or other entity to acquire real property for use as provided in Section 9 of this title or Section 52, 60, or 61 of Title 52 of the Oklahoma Statutes and a jury trial is requested by the owner of any right, title, or interest in such real property, or by both such owner and the condemning authority, and the award of the jury exceeds the greater of the award of the court-appointed commissioners or the last timely written offer of just compensation made by the condemning authority by at least ten percent (10%), the owner of any right, title, or interest in such real property may be paid such sum as in the opinion of the court will reimburse such owner for his or her reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings. Such determination by the court shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the same manner as any other final order. The written offer of just compensation will be considered timely for purposes of this subsection if the offer is made at any time prior to seventy- five (75) days after the report of the court-appointed commissioners is filed. The final award of such sums shall be paid by the person, agency, or other entity which sought to condemn the property. B. Where a condemnation proceeding is instituted for the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section and the final judgment is that the real property cannot be acquired by condemnation, if the party instituting the proceeding abandons such proceeding, or if a jury trial is requested only by the condemning authority, and the award of the jury exceeds ninety percent (90%) of the greater of the award of the court-appointed commissioners or the last written offer of just compensation made by the condemning authority, the owner of any right, title, or interest in such real property may be paid such sum as in the opinion of the court will reimburse such owner for his or her reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings. Such determination by the court shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the same manner as any other final order. The written offer of just compensation will be considered timely for purposes of this subsection if it is made at any time prior to seventy-five (75) days after the report of the court-appointed commissioners is filed. The final award of such sums shall be paid by the person, agency, or other entity which sought to condemn the property.
Added by Laws 1971, c. 355, § 3, eff. July 1, 1972. Amended by Laws 1975, c. 354, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1975; Laws 2025, c. 255, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
Carter v. City of Oklahoma City, 862 P.2d 77 (Okla. 1993).
· cites it 3× “City points to the fact that 27 O.S.1991 § 11 repeats the same wording, “[wjhere a condemnation proceeding is instituted by any person, agency or other entity to acquire real property for use.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Chelsea Butane Co., 2004 OK CIV APP 48, 91 P.3d 656.
· cites it 5× “[3] 27 O.S.2001, § 11 provides: Where a condemnation proceeding is instituted by any person, agency or other entity to acquire real property for use as provided in Section 9 of this title and 1.”
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Cedars Grp., L.L.C., 2017 OK 12.
· cites it 28× “00) by at least ten percent and therefore the Coury Defendants were entitled to be paid a sum in the opinion of the court which will reimburse their reasonable attorney, appraisal, engineering, and expert witness fees actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings…”
Oklahoma Tpk. Auth. v. New Life Pentecostal Church of Jenks, 870 P.2d 762 (Okla. 1994).
“" The pertinent terms of 27 O.S.1991 § 11 are: "Where a condemnation proceeding is instituted by any person, agency or other entity to acquire real property for use as provided in Section 9 of this title and * * * 3.”
McAlester Urban Renewal Auth. v. Hamilton, 521 P.2d 823 (Okla. 1974).
· cites it 2× “27 O.S.1971 §§11 and 12 set out certain circumstances wherein the owner of property shall be paid for reasonable attorney fees actually incurred because of the condemnation proceeding.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Allied Tower Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 71, 136 P.3d 718.
· cites it 4× “100,467, we hold the trial court committed reversible error in determining and awarding "a reasonable attorney fee" under 27 O.S.2001 § 11. The award of attorney fees under this statute is based on the contractual obligation of the landowner to its attorney, unless such…”
Willard v. Ward, 875 P.2d 441 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
“For example, if Willard had been awarded appraisal fees in the condemnation case pursuant to 27 O.S.1991 § 11(3) based on Ward’s testimony, it would be unconscionable to allow Willard to contest such testimony in subsequent litigation concerning the value of those services.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Post, 2005 OK 69, 125 P.3d 1183.
“While 27 O.S.2001 § 11, governs expenses which may be recovered in a regular condemnation proceeding, § 12 provides the reimbursement schedule for expenses in an inverse condemnation proceeding.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. S & S Props., 1999 OK CIV APP 130, 994 P.2d 75.
“Title 27 O.S.1991, § 11, states, in relevant part: Where a condemnation proceeding is instituted by any person, agency or other entity to acquire real property for use as provided in Section 9 of this title and [[Image here]] 3.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 27, § 11(2): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Chelsea Butane Co., 2004 OK CIV APP 48, 91 P.3d 656.
“[3] 27 O.S.2001, § 11 provides: Where a condemnation proceeding is instituted by any person, agency or other entity to acquire real property for use as provided in Section 9 of this title and 1.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 27, § 11(3): 6 cases
Willard v. Ward, 875 P.2d 441 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
“For example, if Willard had been awarded appraisal fees in the condemnation case pursuant to 27 O.S.1991 § 11(3) based on Ward’s testimony, it would be unconscionable to allow Willard to contest such testimony in subsequent litigation concerning the value of those services.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Allied Tower Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 71, 136 P.3d 718.
“100,467, we hold the trial court committed reversible error in determining and awarding "a reasonable attorney fee" under 27 O.S.2001 § 11. The award of attorney fees under this statute is based on the contractual obligation of the landowner to its attorney, unless such…”
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.