Legal Opinion

Nice v. Priday

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 10, 1997No. CC96-28; CA A95984PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.

In this action for a statutory way of necessity, ORS 376.150 to ORS 376.200, 1 we must determine whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Because the parties do not dispute the relevant facts, we review to determine whether defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ORCP 47 C. We reverse and remand.

Plaintiffs own the north quarter of a section of land in Wasco County. Defendants own the remaining three-quarters of that section, as well as land to the south…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Drews v. EBI CompaniesOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Rennie v. Freeway TransportOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Thompson v. ScottOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  4. POWERS ET UX. v. Coos Bay Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Nice v. PridayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wolf v. CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROADCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  2. Bradley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API