Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kidney Ass'n of Oregon, Inc. v. Ferguson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 14, 1989No. 135-858; CA A45750Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGraber, P. J.

I concur in the majority’s opinion except as to McMenamin’s fees, with respect to which the majority substitutes indignation for analysis. The majority states the correct test for considering a potential conflict of interest and a breach of fiduciary duty, such as those that existed here. I disagree, however, with its application of that test. I would modify the fee to $12,000 and, therefore, dissent in part.

Even though our review of the probate judgment is generally de novo, Jacobs v. Jacobs, 82 Or App 333, 336, 728 P2d 89 (1986), we should modify the attorney fee award only if the trial…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. JacobsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  2. Smith v. United States National BankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API