Legal Opinion

Haag v. Cembellin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 23, 1987No. C83-7-106; CA A38553PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeits, J.

Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Haag, brought this action against defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Cembellin, for intentional fraud and violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) in connection with the sale of real property. The jury returned a verdict for the Haags on both claims, awarding general damages of $11,000 and punitive damages of $33,000. The Cembellins appeal and assign errors to the trial court’s denial of their motions for directed verdict, to evidentiary rulings and to the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury. We affirm.

The Haags wanted to purchase ocean view…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Brown v. J. C. Penney Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Bodenhamer v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Olston v. Oregon Water Power & Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Elizaga v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Byers v. Santiam Ford, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gregory v. NovakCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  2. McMullin v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  3. Russell v. KerleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  4. Gillett v. TuckerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  5. Buckner v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2003

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