Legal Opinion

Fleming Companies v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 10, 1997No. 9601-00024; CA A96035Published

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Defendant Henderson1 moves for review of the trial court’s order fixing the amount of the undertaking on appeal. ORAP 8.40.2 The court required that the undertaking include both (1) an amount equal to 10 percent of the money judgment appealed, ORS 19.160, as prospective damages for prosecuting an appeal without probable cause; and (2) the amount of plaintiffs anticipated attorney fees on appeal. We conclude that the trial court did not err in including an allowance for the 10 percent penalty, but erred in including prospective attorney fees, in the undertaking. Accordingly, we modify the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Broyles v. Estate of BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Financial Factoring Corp. v. United Electric Apparatus Repair, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  3. In re Marriage of SalazarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  4. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Bles Studs, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API