Legal Opinion

Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 11, 1996No. 9407-04901; CA A89325PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s judgment, following a stipulated facts trial, that the defendant insurance company was not obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiffs against a claim of intentional housing discrimination. We affirm.

The parties stipulated to the following facts: Plaintiff Joel Groshong owned the Cabana Apartments in Portland and employed plaintiffs JoAnn and Gary Huth to manage them. In November 1992, a prospective tenant, Ms. Sifuentes, who had a seven-week-old son, inquired about renting a vacant second-floor apartment. Ms. Huth informed Sifuentes that the Cabana…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Isenhart v. General Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Nielsen v. St. Paul CompaniesOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  4. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, ETC. v. Mission Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  5. Martin v. BrunzelleDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1988

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Northland Casualty Co. v. HBE Corp.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2001
  2. Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Doyle v. City of MedfordCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  4. State v. AmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  5. Regence Group v. Tig Specialty InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2012

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