Legal Opinion

Poddar v. Clatsop County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 28, 2000No. 97-2092; CA A103154PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in this matter, Poddar v. Clatsop County, 167 Or App 162, 2 P3d 929 (2000), arguing that we erred in designating plaintiff as the prevailing party. We grant reconsideration and adhere to our original, opinion. Plaintiff was successful on appeal in obtaining the vacation of the supplemental judgment for attorney fees against him. However, we held that the trial court had authority to reconsider the issue of attorney fees on remand. Id. at 172. “The right to recover costs on appeal is governed by the result on appeal, not by whether the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Poddar v. Clatsop CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. Akins v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Utsey v. Coos CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. Just v. City of LebanonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. Hood River County v. StevensonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  4. Hale v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  5. Crandon Capital Partners Ex Rel. Willamette Industries v. ShelkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

5 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