Legal Opinion
Bennett v. Baugh
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 24, 1999No. 9412-08281; CA A91803PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LINDER, «J.
The Supreme Court, having determined that defendants are entitled to an award of attorney fees, has remanded this case to our court. Bennett v. Baugh, 329 Or 282, 985 P2d 282 (1999). On remand, the issue before us is whether the trial court erred in failing to apportion the attorney fees and to award fees only for work performed on the claim for which defendants have a right to recover fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the supplemental judgment for attorney fees as modified.
Defendants retained plaintiff, an attorney, to represent their corporation in several construction…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- CJC v. Corporation of Catholic BishopWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Domingo v. AndersonOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Estate of Wesley E. Smith v. WareOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- Malot v. HadleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Greb v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Makarios-Oregon, LLC v. Ross Dress-For-Less, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
- Village at North Pointe Condominiums Ass'n v. Bloedel Construction Co.Lincoln County Circuit Court, Oregon · 2016
- Alexander Manufacturing, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership & Trust v. Illinois Union InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2010
- Morgan v. GoodsellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Beers v. Jeson EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.