|
Maria Sheehan and Troy Sheehan v. Gold Beach Resort, LLC; Gold Beach Resort & Condominium; Best Western Hotels & Resorts; and Angels Management, Inc. |
|
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon v. Joseph Y. Aizawa, et al. |
Ordinarily, a party entitled to recover attorney fees |
A&T Siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. |
The Brownstone Homes Condominium Association discovered defects in the construction of its 26-building condominium complex, including wood decay, flashing delamination, and water penetration. In consequence, Brownstone initiated a negligence action against the general contractor who built the complex, as well as one of its subcontractors, A&T Siding. Brownstone estimated that A&T’s share of the co... More... $0 (10-09-2015 - OR) |
Brownstone Homes Condo. Assn. v. Brownstone Forest Hts. |
Defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance Co. has moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it has become moot. According to Capitol, the issues to be decided in the appeal pertain to the terms of an agreement settling an underlying construction defect case, but those very terms have been superseded by amendments to the agreement adopted during the pendency of the appeal. We conclude that, becau... More... $0 (10-09-2015 - OR) |
WSB Investments, LLC v. Pronghorn Development Company, LLC |
Plaintiff WSB Investments, LLC owns an interest |
Mark Vukanovich v. Larry Kine |
Judgment reversed and remanded for entry of judgment |
Vernon Goodsell v. Eagle-Air Estates Homeowners Association |
1 HASELTON, C. J. |
Butler Block, LLC v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon |
Plaintiff Butler Block, LLC (Butler Block) appeals, assigning error to the trial court's allowance of summary judgment in favor of defendant Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet). On appeal, Butler Block raises a single assignment of error, contending that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to TriMet because there are issues of material fact as to wheth... More... $0 (04-27-2011 - OR) |
Michael V. Deming v. Debra Ann Deming |
Wife appeals the trial court's dissolution judgment, assigning error to the court's spousal support award and property division. We reject her contentions concerning spousal support without discussion and write only to address wife's argument that, when dividing the parties' property, the trial court erred by valuing husband's retirement accounts (the "Retirement Income Plan" and the "Savings Plan... More... $0 (01-19-2011 - OR) |
Rafferty & Towner, Inc. v. NJS Enterprises, LLC, et al. |
In the litigation that precipitated this case, plaintiff obtained a judgment against a company called Wallbangers Oregon, Inc., but could not collect on the judgment. According to plaintiff, Wallbangers evaded its obligation to pay the judgment by engaging in a fraudulent transfer of its major asset, an interest in a condominium. Plaintiff filed this action against defendant Bengio Corporation o... More... $0 (05-12-2010 - OR) |
Lawrence D. Brice v. Richard J. Hrdlicka |
Defendant appeals a judgment enforcing an oral agreement for the conveyance of an interest in real property. Although defendant advances seven assignments of error, we write only to address defendant's contention that the statute of frauds prohibits the agreement's enforcement, rejecting defendant's other assignments of error without discussion. Because we conclude that plaintiff demonstrated pa... More... $0 (04-15-2009 - OR) |
Rafferty & Towner, Inc. v. NJS Enterprises, LLC, Roger Staich and Dayna Bolera |
Plaintiff Rafferty & Towner, an Oregon corporation, brought this claim against defendant Bengio Corporation, a Florida corporation, under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, ORS 95.200 to 95.310, asserting that plaintiff's judgment debtor, Wallbangers Oregon, Inc., fraudulently transferred real property to defendant. Plaintiff appeals from a limited judgment dismissing the claim, assigning error... More... $0 (11-19-2008 - OR) |
Gretchen D. Hutchinson v. Robert B. Hutchinson II |
Husband appeals from a judgment that modified his monthly spousal support obligation to wife by reducing it from $6,000 to $3,000. Husband contends that the trial court should have reduced the support award to $250 per month and that, because he is unemployed and has no immediate prospects of finding employment, the court erred in attributing to him potential income of $120,000 per year. Husban... More... $0 (05-29-2003 - OR) |