Legal Opinion

Cusick v. Meyer

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 7, 1990No. A8601-0306; CA A48116Published

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

Plaintiffs move for reconsideration on the ground that we erred in concluding that defendants are entitled to attorney fees.1 98 Or App 358, 359, 779 P2d 198 (1989). We allow the motion, modify our former opinion and adhere to it as modified.2

In our original opinion, we reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court had erred in granting plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion on their ejectment claim but that “[attorney fees are not recoverable in an ejectment action” and that “[d]efendants were entitled to attorney fees under the contract when they prevailed on their counterclaim.” 98 Or…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Marquam Investment Corp. v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  2. Pelett v. WelchCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  3. Zidell v. Greenway Landing Development Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  4. Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  5. Johns v. ParkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

1 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