Legal Opinion
Murray Well-Drilling v. Deisch
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided August 14, 1985No. CC83-179, CC83-294; CA A33850PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJoseph, C. J.
The State of Oregon (DVA) has petitioned for review of our order dismissing this appeal. See ORAP 10.10(1). We grant the petition for reconsideration and adhere to the order.
The initial question is whether DVA is an “aggrieved party” within the meaning of ORS 2.520. It appears from the judgment that DVA was the prevailing party at trial and that Murray Well-Drilling, Inc. (Murray) was the losing party. Murray filed a notice of appeal designating DVA as respondent. DVA did not file a notice of appeal or, after the filing of Murray’s notice of appeal, a notice of cross-appeal. On our own…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- State v. CaseyOregon Supreme Court · 1923
- City of Portland v. Carriage InnOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- May v. Josephine Memorial Hospital, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
- Pohrman v. KLAMATH COUNTY COMMISSIONERSOregon Supreme Court · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Ellis v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1986
- Berger Farms v. First Interstate BankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Honeyman v. ClostermannCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- Baugh v. Bryant Limited PartnershipsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Patrick v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.