Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fogh v. McRill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 25, 1998No. 16-95-05218; 16-95-05220; CA A94266Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partEdmonds, J.

I concur with the majority opinion except in regard to the third assignment of error. In that regard, plaintiff contends, “The trial court erred by awarding motel expenses to [defendant] because such damages constitute an impermissible ‘double recovery’ by [him].” She explains that after the restraining order was issued prohibiting defendant from residing at the partnership property, he moved to a motel that cost him $45 per night. The trial court awarded judgment against plaintiff in the amount of $33,039, which included an award of $3,375 for the motel expenses. The trial court also awarded…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of HaguewoodOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Herrmann v. ChurchillOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Campbell v. KarbCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  4. Mikkelson v. ConserCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API