OSCN Found Document:Inverse Condemnation Proceedings - Reimbursement of Expenses
Title 27. Eminent Domain

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
  Title 27. Eminent Domain
    General Provisions
        Section 12 - Inverse Condemnation Proceedings - Reimbursement of Expenses
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __


Where an inverse condemnation proceeding is instituted by the owner of any right, title or interest in real property because of use of his property in any public program or project described in Section 1 of this act, the court, rendering a judgment for the plaintiff in such proceeding and awarding compensation for the taking of property, or the state's attorney effecting a settlement of any such proceeding, shall determine an award or allow to such plaintiff, as a part of such judgment or settlement, such sum as will, in the opinion of the court or the acquiring entity's attorney, respectively, reimburse such plaintiff for his reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred because of such proceeding. A determination by the court shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the same manner as any other final order.

Historical Data


Laws 1971, HB 1479, c. 355, § 4, eff. July 1, 1972.

Citationizer® Summary of Documents Citing This Document
Cite Name Level
Oklahoma Attorney General's Opinions
 CiteNameLevel
 1984 OK AG 176, Question Submitted by: The Honorable James E. Henshaw, Oklahoma House of RepresentativesDiscussed at Length
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases
 CiteNameLevel
 1993 OK CIV APP 39, 849 P.2d 1109, 64 OBJ 1117, Rummage v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp.Cited
 1993 OK CIV APP 40, 849 P.2d 1113, 64 OBJ 1205, Underwood v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp.Cited
 1993 OK CIV APP 45, 856 P.2d 575, 64 OBJ 2527, Corbell v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp.Discussed at Length
 2002 OK CIV APP 72, 50 P.3d 1146, STATE EX. REL. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. OPUBCO, INC.Cited
 2003 OK CIV APP 29, 66 P.3d 1004, IN THE MATTER OF C.R.T.Cited
 2008 OK CIV APP 52, 187 P.3d 214, CITY OF NOWATA v. HAMILTONDiscussed
 2012 OK CIV APP 17, 273 P.3d 880, MATERIAL SERVICE CORPORATION v. ROGERS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSDiscussed
 2015 OK CIV APP 76, 359 P.3d 192, VAUGHN v. CITY OF MUSKOGEECited
 2000 OK CIV APP 19, 998 P.2d 1245, 71 OBJ 1208, WILLIAMS v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIONCited
Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases
 CiteNameLevel
 1989 OK 166, 794 P.2d 742, 60 OBJ 808, Oxley v. City of Tulsa, By and Through Tulsa Airport AuthorityCited
 1989 OK 70, 775 P.2d 1347, 60 OBJ 1133, April v. City of Broken ArrowCited
 1993 OK 134, 862 P.2d 77, 64 OBJ 3283, Carter v. City of Oklahoma CityDiscussed at Length
 2022 OK 5, 502 P.3d 1112, ROCKET PROPERTIES v. LaFORTUNECited
Citationizer: Table of Authority
Cite Name Level
None Found.