Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

John Deere Co. v. Epstein

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 18, 1988No. 35203; CA A36833Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRichardson, J.

I disagree with the majority’s holding that Epstein is not entitled to attorney fees under the contractual provision. Unlike the plaintiff in Pickinpaugh v. Morton, 268 Or 9, 519 P2d 91 (1974), and the counterclaiming defendant in Bodenhamer v. Patterson, 278 Or 367, 563 P2d 1212 (1977), Epstein did not seek a judicial nullification of the contract’s existence. His “disaffirmance” was simply a defense to liability in plaintiffs action on the contract. I dissent from the part of the majority’s opinion which extends Pickinpaugh and Bodenhamer to reach these facts.

The case the majority cites…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bodenhamer v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Pickinpaugh v. MortonOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Anaheim Co. v. ElliottCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API