Legal Opinion

Amatisto v. Paz

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 12, 1986No. BC85-804; CA A36794PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*343ROSSMAN, J.

This is an action for forcible entry and detainer (FED) for nonpayment of rent for a residence. Defendant (tenant) counterclaimed, alleging various habitability violations. The trial court held that tenant had failed to prove her counterclaims and that the full amount of rent was owing. Accordingly, judgment was entered awarding rent, possession and attorney fees to landlord.

Tenant rented a house from landlord, pursuant to a written rental agreement. Although the facts were strenuously disputed, it appears that, from the beginning of the tenancy, tenant complained to landlord…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Marquam Investment Corp. v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  2. L & M Investment Co. v. MorrisonOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Napolski v. ChampneyOregon Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Lopez v. KilbourneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  3. Stonebrook Hillsboro, L.L.C. v. FlavelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  4. Timmermann v. HermanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  5. Barbara Parmenter Living Trust v. LemonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API