Legal Opinion
Henderson v. Jantzen, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 19, 1986No. CC 84-27; CA A35739PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtWarren, J.
In this action for damages and injunctive relief, plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment because of his sex, in violation of ORS 659.030(1)(a). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. We reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for trial. Henderson v. Jantzen, Inc., 79 Or App 654, 719 P2d 1322 rev den 302 Or 35 (1986). Plaintiff now petitions for attorney fees incurred on appeal, pursuant to ORS 659.121(1) and ORS 20.310(2).1 ORS 659.121(1) provides, in part:
“In any suit brought under this subsection, the court may…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Henderson v. Jantzen, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- UNITED STATES NAT. BANK OF OREGON v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. Portland Trading Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Rogerson v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
- Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Bles Studs, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Henderson v. Jantzen, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987