In Haggart v. United States, No. 21-1660 (June 22, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Uniform Relocation Act is like a lot of other fee-shifting statutes, and does not authorize attorneys fees for work performed by a lawyer if that lawyer is one of the litigants. Slip op. at 8 ("We see no sound reason to read the URA’s fee provision to authorize an attorney pro se litigant to receive attorney’s fees when 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other fee-shifting statutes do not.").
We're posting this here because the underlying case involves a rails-to-trails takings claim, and because we know you are interested in any decisions interpreting and applying the URA.
Haggart v. United States, No. 21-1660 (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2022)
