Legal Opinion

Bunnell v. Bernau

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 22, 1993No. 90 CV 2638 CC; CA A74528PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeits, P. J.

Plaintiffs brought this action, alleging that defendants had interfered with their use of a water pipeline easement over defendants’ property. The trial court granted plaintiffs injunctive relief and awarded them damages for their costs of obtaining an alternative water supply and other costs that they incurred as a result of the interference. Defendants appeal the merits of the judgment, and plaintiffs cross-appeal from the trial court’s denial of attorney fees that they sought pursuant to ORS 20.080. We affirm on the appeal and reverse on the cross-appeal. Only the cross-appeal requires…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bennett v. MinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Rose v. RoseOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Scott v. State Ex Rel. State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
  2. State v. HansonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. Stephenson v. PiersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  4. Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. MartellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  5. State v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API