Legal Opinion

McCarthy v. Tomlinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 22, 1988No. 16-85-06787; CA A44660PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraber, J.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, who are attorneys, on a theory of money had and received, to recover fees that they had paid defendants. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.

Because this case was decided on a motion to dismiss, we accept the facts pleaded by plaintiffs as true. Sommerfeldt v. Trammell, 74 Or App 183, 187, 702 P2d 430 (1985). Plaintiffs hired defendants to prosecute a claim. According to the complaint, defendants breached their fiduciary duty to plaintiffs by (1) failing to act solely for plaintiffs’ benefit by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Schroeder v. SchaeferOregon Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Schroeder v. SchaeferOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Adams v. Crater Well Drilling, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Sommerfeldt v. TrammellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Frohnmayer v. Oregon State BarOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Jantzen Beach Associates, LLC v. Jantzen Dynamic Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. Jantzen Beach Associates v. JANTZEN DYNAMICCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  4. Durland v. StraubDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API