Legal Opinion

Domingo v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 24, 1996No. 9306-03850; CA A84591PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, P. J.

In this action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment for defendants. ORCP 47 C. They also appeal an amended judgment that awarded attorney fees to defendant Anderson. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

These facts are not in dispute. In 1983, plaintiffs gave Anderson a promissory note (the Anderson note), which was secured by a trust deed on real property that became plaintiffs’ residence. The Anderson note provided that, after plaintiffs paid the obligation to Anderson, they would assume an underlying loan on the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Mattiza v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Attaway, Inc. v. SafferCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  3. Parquit Corporation v. RossOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Associated Oregon Veterans v. Department of Veterans' AffairsOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Horn v. Lieuallen Land and Livestock Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Domingo v. AndersonOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Lumbermen's v. Dakota VenturesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  3. Little Whale Cove Homeowners Ass'n v. HarmonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  4. Bridgestar Capital Corp. v. NguyenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  5. Watts v. Lane CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

3 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