Poddar v. Clatsop Cnty., 7 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Poddar v. Clatsop Cnty., 7 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we must consider the issue of justiciability sua sponte because it affects the trial court's jurisdiction to enter the judgments.”
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Just v. City of Lebanon (orctapp, 2004-04-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Just v. City of Lebanon
Or. Ct. App. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
we must consider the issue of justiciability sua sponte because it affects the trial court's jurisdiction to enter the judgments.
discussed Cited "see" Utsey v. Coos County
Or. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Poddar v. Clatsop County, 167 Or.App. 162, 164 , 2 P.3d 929 , adhered to 168 Or.App. 556 , 7 P.3d 677 , rev. den. 331 Or. 193 , 10 P.3d 944 (2000) (holding that courts must consider the issue of justiciability sua sponte, because it affects the court's jurisdiction to enter a judgment).
discussed Cited "see" Utsey v. Coos County (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Poddar v. Clatsop County, 167 Or.App. 162, 164 , 2 P.3d 929 , adhered to 168 Or.App. 556 , 7 P.3d 677 , rev. den. 331 Or. 193 , 10 P.3d 944 (2000) (holding that courts must consider the issue of justiciability sua sponte, because it affects the court's jurisdiction to enter a judgment).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
Or. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Poddar v. Clatsop County, 167 Or App 162, 164 , 2 P3d 929 , adhered to on recons 168 Or App 556 , 7 P3d 677 , rev den 331 Or 193 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bhagwati P. PODDAR
v.
CLATSOP COUNTY
97-2092; CA A103154.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Jun 28, 2000.
7 P.3d 677
2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1117
Charles H. Turner, Judge pro tempore., Blair J. Henningsgaard, Astoria, for petition., Bhagwati P. Poddar, pro se, contra.
Armstrong, Edmonds, Kistler.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 65%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
EDMONDS, P. J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in this matter, Poddar v. Clatsop County, 167 Or App 162, 2 P3d 929 (2000), arguing that we erred in designating plaintiff as the prevailing party. We grant reconsideration and adhere to our original, opinion. Plaintiff was successful on appeal in obtaining the vacation of the supplemental judgment for attorney fees against him. However, we held that the trial court had authority to reconsider the issue of attorney fees on remand. Id. at 172. “The right to recover costs on appeal is governed by the result on appeal, not by whether the party seeking costs obtains a favorable final judgment.” Akins v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 118 Or App 471, 473, 848 P2d 124 (1993). Thus, plaintiff is the prevailing party on appeal, regardless of the trial court’s decision on remand.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion adhered to.