Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Marriage of Cross

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 2, 1986No. 79-3-134; CA A34376Published

1DissentVan Hoomissen, J.

Giving proper deference to the trial judge’s opportunity to see and hear the witnesses,1 on de novo review I would affirm his ruling. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

See Meier and Meier, 286 Or 437, 445-46, 595 P2d 474 (1979); Settle and Settle, 276 Or 759, 772, 556 P2d 962 (1976); Bennehoff and Bennehoff, 209 Or 224, 225, 304 P2d 1079 (1956); McFadden v. McFadden, 206 Or 253, 257, 292 P2d 795 (1956); Rea v. Rea, 195 Or 252, 261, 245 P2d 884 (1952); Moe and Moe, 66 Or App 947, 949, 676 P2d 336 (1984); Elgin and Elgin, 58 Or App 94, 98, 647 P2d 941 (1982); Browne and Browne, 30 Or App 213,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Rea v. ReaOregon Supreme Court · 1952
  2. In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of McCoyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  3. In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of McCoyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  4. Marriage of SettleOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  5. In re the Marriage of StarinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977

6 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