Legal Opinion

Smo v. Black

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 22, 1989No. E82-1775; CA A46644PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

This is the second appeal in this case. See Smo v. Black, 93 Or App 234, 761 P2d 1339 (1988). Defendants now appeal a judgment awarding plaintiff costs and attorney fees pursuant to ORCP 46A(4) and ORCP 46C because of defendants’ responses to requests for admissions under ORCP 45. We affirm.

Plaintiff brought this action for a declaratory judgment to establish her right to cross defendants’ land and to use a footbridge over the Smith River to get to her property. Her claim to use the bridge rested primarily on a written agreement entered into in 1963 by E. G. Dunn, plaintiffs predecessor in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smo v. BlackCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. Becker v. DeLeoneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gottenberg v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  2. Elliott v. Progressive Halcyon InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. Adams v. Hunter Engineering Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  4. Arnold v. McClanahanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  5. Smo v. SwallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API