Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Staten v. Steel

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 20, 2008No. 160515033; A133080Published

1ConcurrenceEdmonds, P. J.

I concur with the majority’s ruling that the trial court’s failure to make findings renders its ruling on the attorney fees and those issues associated with the request for attorney fees not subject to meaningful review and that remand on those issues is necessary. I concur also with the result reached by the majority on defendants’ other assignments of error but would reach that result as to defendant Falbo’s first assignment of error on a different basis.1

The majority exercises its discretion not to review Falbo’s first assignment of error by relying on reasoning first *45employed by this…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Wheeler v. GreenOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Bell v. HarmonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1955

10 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