Legal Opinion

Winters v. Woodburn Carcraft Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 10, 1996No. 94-08266; CA A89787PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, P. J.

Employer moves for an order imposing sanctions against claimant’s attorney on the ground that claimant’s petition for judicial review was frivolous. Claimant did not respond to the motion. We allow it and award attorney fees and costs in the amount of $1,645.75.

ORS 656.390(1) provides, in relevant part:

“if either party * * * appeals for review of the [workers’ compensation] claim to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court * * * and the * * * court finds that the appeal * * * was frivolous or was filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment, the * * * court may impose an…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. Westfall v. Rust International & Underwriters Adjusting Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Weiland v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Somers v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dillon v. Whirlpool Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. Liberty Northwest Insurance v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API