Legal Opinion

Hamer v. Mayeda

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 28, 1983No. 27188; A26465PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

The issue in this case is whether defendants, who prevailed on a breach of warranty counterclaim, are prevailing plaintiffs under ORS 20.098(1), thereby entitling them to attorney and expert witness fees. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that defendants were not prevailing plaintiffs, relying on Marquam Investment Corp. v. Myers, 35 Or App 23, 581 P2d 545, rev den 284 Or 341 (1978). We reverse.

The facts are undisputed. Plaintiff sued defendant homeowners for breach of a contract under which he performed electrical work on defendants’ new home. Defendants denied owing plaintiff money…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Marquam Investment Corp. v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  2. Lawrence v. PeelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Illingworth v. BushongCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Miller v. FernleyOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Nicoletti v. Damerow Ford Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1979

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bennett v. MinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  2. Waterbury v. Department of RevenueOregon Tax Court · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API