Legal Opinion

Mulier v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 22, 1999No. 16-96-09570; CA A100065PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment against his claims under 42 USC section 1983 and for “violation of statutory duty” and from the trial court’s subsequent entry of a judgment for attorney fees. He asserts that the court erred in allowing summary judgment and that the allowance of attorney fees was erroneous in that, inter alia, defendants never asserted an entitlement to fees in their motion for summary judgment. See ORCP 68 C(2)(b). We affirm the entry of summary judgment without any further discussion. However, we vacate the judgment awarding defendants attorney fees and remand for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Attaway, Inc. v. SafferCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  3. Lumbermen's v. Dakota VenturesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  4. Heidtke v. International Brotherhood of BoilermakersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Horn v. Lieuallen Land and Livestock Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mulier v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Crandon Capital Partners v. ShelkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. In re the Marriage of AdamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  4. Bridgestar Capital Corp. v. NguyenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  5. In re the Marriage of GintherCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

1 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