Farhang v. Kariminaser
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, J.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding him $120,000 in damages but denying him prejudgment interest. He asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that the proper amount of prejudgment interest was not readily ascertainable. We review for legal error, Emmert v. No Problem Harry, Inc., 222 Or App 151, 158, 192 P3d 844 (2008), and affirm.
This case arises out of a series of loans totaling $150,000 that plaintiff made to defendant. The parties executed promissory notes that provided that defendant would pay plaintiff interest at an annual rate of 10 percent and that the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Strader v. Grange Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
- York v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- Emmert v. No Problem Harry, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- Miller v. CC Meisel Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Precision Seed Cleaners v. Country Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2013
- Patton v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
- Farhang v. KariminaserCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- Spaid v. 4-R Equipment, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- Degon v. USAA Casualty Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.