Legal Opinion

Hill v. Mayers

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 12, 1990No. 88-229-J-3; CA A60052PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*631EDMONDS, J.

Plaintiff appeals1 from a judgment after the trial court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict under ORCP 60. We affirm.

Plaintiff was looking for a house to purchase that could be converted to a bed and breakfast business. A real estate agent referred her to defendants Mayers. She argues that she purchased Mayers’ house in reliance on a promise that remodeling the house to meet her needs could be done for less than $7,500, but that the actual cost of remodeling was $36,810. She identifies her claim as a claim “for damages under a theory of promissory estoppel.” As we…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Schafer v. Fraser Et UxOregon Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Bixler v. First Nat. Bank of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Bush v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Texas v. Wildish Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1988
  5. City of Ashland v. HoffarthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Staley v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. Neiss v. EhlersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  3. State v. HendricksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. Duncan v. Office DepotDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1997
  5. D'ANGELO v. SchultzCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

11 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