Legal Opinion

In Re the Marriage of Holm

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 1996No. CC 93P-20974; CA A84395; SC S42392PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

This case involves an interpretation of the attorney-fees provision in ORS 107.105(5). The question is whether a parent (mother), who was awarded custody of a minor child in a dissolution proceeding, may recover attorney fees on appeal from the child’s grandfather, who intervened in the proceeding pursuant to ORS 109.121(1)(b) for the purpose of obtaining grandparent visitation. The Court of Appeals denied mother’s petition for attorney fees. Holm and Holm, 134 Or App 513, 895 P2d 803 (1995). For the reasons explained below, we reverse.

The facts are not in dispute. The child’s parents were…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Mattiza v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Draper v. MULLENNEXOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Lewis v. Department of RevenueOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Hughes v. BembryOregon Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lehman v. BradburyOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Fennelly v. NortonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  3. Handy v. Lane CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. Schlumberger Technologies, Inc. v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  5. In re the Marriage ShofnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

2 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