Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1953–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mattiza v. Fostergreen2 sentences2024ORS 305.490 and TCR 68 Generally, Oregon courts follow the American rule and “will not award attorney fees to the prevailing party absent authorization of statute or contract.” Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 4 , 803 P2d 723 (1990). 2024ORS 305.490 and TCR 68 Generally, Oregon courts follow the American rule and “will not award attorney fees to the prevailing party absent authorization of statute or contract.” Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 4 , 803 P2d 723 (1990). | 3 | 6 |
Onepoint Solutions, Llc, a Georgia Limited Liability Company v. Michael Borchert William Catuzzigreen2 sentences2015La Noue lacked any statutory or contractual basis for the recovery of any attorney fees. 14 Huffstutter, however, recognized a third-party litigation exception to the American rule in the circumstances when attorney fees are claimed as consequential damages. 15 Huffstutter held that, although “[i]n the absence of contract, attorney fees are allowable only where there is statutory authority,” there is an exception to that rule, whereby “attorney fees are generally allowable as damages in an action against a defendant where the defendant’s tortious or wrongful conduct involved the plaintiff in p 2015La Noue lacked any statutory or contractual basis for the recovery of any attorney fees. 14 Huffstutter, however, recognized a third-party litigation exception to the American rule in the circumstances when attorney fees are claimed as consequential damages. 15 Huffstutter held that, although “[i]n the absence of contract, attorney fees are allowable only where there is statutory authority,” there is an exception to that rule, whereby “attorney fees are generally allowable as damages in an action against a defendant where the defendant’s tortious or wrongful conduct involved the plaintiff in p | 2 | 2 |
Huffstutter v. Lindgreen2 sentences2020See 357 Or at 34 n 5 (discussing indemnity). 596 JH Kelly, LLC v. Quality Plus Services, Inc. conduct is simply a situation in which the American rule does not apply, rather than an ‘exception’ to the rule.”); Huffstutter v. Lind, 250 Or 295, 301 , 442 P2d 227 (1968) (“[A]ttorney fees are generally allowable as damages in an action against a defendant where the defendant’s tortious or wrongful conduct involved the plaintiff in prior litigation with a third party.”). 2020See 357 Or at 34 n 5 (discussing indemnity). 596 JH Kelly, LLC v. Quality Plus Services, Inc. conduct is simply a situation in which the American rule does not apply, rather than an ‘exception’ to the rule.”); Huffstutter v. Lind, 250 Or 295, 301 , 442 P2d 227 (1968) (“[A]ttorney fees are generally allowable as damages in an action against a defendant where the defendant’s tortious or wrongful conduct involved the plaintiff in prior litigation with a third party.”). | 1 | 3 |
Peace River Seed Co-Operative, Ltd. v. Proseeds Marketing, Inc.green2 sentences2015Under the so-called American rule regarding the award of attorney fees, “Generally, a party cannot recover attorney fees unless there is a statute or a contract that authorizes recovery of those fees.” Peace River Seed Co-Op v. Proseeds Marketing, 355 Or 44, 65 , 322 P3d 531 (2014). 2015Under the so-called American rule regarding the award of attorney fees, “Generally, a party cannot recover attorney fees unless there is a statute or a contract that authorizes recovery of those fees.” Peace River Seed Co-Op v. Proseeds Marketing, 355 Or 44, 65 , 322 P3d 531 (2014). | 1 | 3 |
Swett v. Bradburygreen2 sentences2021See Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 381 , 67 P3d 391 (2003) (“Ordinarily, a court awards attorney fees to a litigant only if a statute or contract authorizes such an award.”); Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 US 240, 247 , 95 S Ct 1612 , 44 L Ed 2d 141 (1975) (describing the “American rule”). 2021See Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 381 , 67 P3d 391 (2003) (“Ordinarily, a court awards attorney fees to a litigant only if a statute or contract authorizes such an award.”); Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 US 240, 247 , 95 S Ct 1612 , 44 L Ed 2d 141 (1975) (describing the “American rule”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramosgreen2 sentences2020Accord State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 600 , 368 P3d 446 (2016) (“[W]hen a plaintiff brings a claim against a defendant for damages, the plaintiff may seek, as an element of damages, attor- ney fees and costs that the plaintiff incurred in litigation with a third party.”); Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noue Development, LLC, 357 Or 333 , 361 n 15, 353 P3d 563 (2015) (“The third-party litigation exception to the American rule [that parties pay their own attorney fees] has been adopted by almost every jurisdiction in the United States. * * * It might be more accurate to say that a claim for attorney fe 2020Accord State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 600 , 368 P3d 446 (2016) (“[W]hen a plaintiff brings a claim against a defendant for damages, the plaintiff may seek, as an element of damages, attor- ney fees and costs that the plaintiff incurred in litigation with a third party.”); Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noue Development, LLC, 357 Or 333 , 361 n 15, 353 P3d 563 (2015) (“The third-party litigation exception to the American rule [that parties pay their own attorney fees] has been adopted by almost every jurisdiction in the United States. * * * It might be more accurate to say that a claim for attorney fe | 1 | 1 |
ROCKY MOUNTAIN FESTIVALS v. Parsons Corp.green2 sentences2020Rather, the doctrine is but an acknowledge- ment that the litigation costs incurred by a party in sepa- rate litigation may sometimes be an appropriate measure of compensatory damages against another party.” 242 P3d at 1071 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). 2020Rather, the doctrine is but an acknowledge- ment that the litigation costs incurred by a party in sepa- rate litigation may sometimes be an appropriate measure of compensatory damages against another party.” 242 P3d at 1071 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Revenue v. Rakocygreen1 sentence2018See Dept. of Rev. v. Rakocy, 15 OTR 389, 390 (2001) (citing Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 4 , 803 P2d 723 (1990); describing the “American rule” of generally not awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party). | 1 | 1 |
Menasha Forest Products Corp. v. Curry County Title, Inc.green2 sentences2014Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1 , 803 P2d 723 (1990); see also Menasha Forest Products Corp. v. Curry County Title, 350 Or 81, 88 , 249 P3d 1265 (2011). 2014Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1 , 803 P2d 723 (1990); see also Menasha Forest Products Corp. v. Curry County Title, 350 Or 81, 88 , 249 P3d 1265 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
McIntire v. Forbesgreen2 sentences2010See Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 577-78 (2d ed 1995) (explaining that, in legal drafting, “must” is generally used in the sense of “an absolute requirement”); id. at 941 (“Under the American rule * * *, [must] means ‘is required to’ and is used primarily when an inanimate object appears as subject of the clause. * * * Under the ABC rule * * *, must denotes all required actions, whether or not the subject of the clause performs the action of the verb[.]” 7 ). 2010See Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 577-78 (2d ed 1995) (explaining that, in legal drafting, “must” is generally used in the sense of “an absolute requirement”); id. at 941 (“Under the American rule * * *, [must] means ‘is required to’ and is used primarily when an inanimate object appears as subject of the clause. * * * Under the ABC rule * * *, must denotes all required actions, whether or not the subject of the clause performs the action of the verb[.]” 7 ). | 1 | 1 |
Deras v. Myersgreen1 sentence2003He acknowledged the “American rule” that courts will not award attorney fees in the absence of an authorizing statute or contract, but “correctly point[ed] out that courts of equity have the inherent power to award attorney’s fees.” Deras, 272 Or at 65-66 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noue Development, LLC
green
2 sentences2020Accord State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 600 , 368 P3d 446 (2016) (“[W]hen a plaintiff brings a claim against a defendant for damages, the plaintiff may seek, as an element of damages, attor- ney fees and costs that the plaintiff incurred in litigation with a third party.”); Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noue Development, LLC, 357 Or 333 , 361 n 15, 353 P3d 563 (2015) (“The third-party litigation exception to the American rule [that parties pay their own attorney fees] has been adopted by almost every jurisdiction in the United States. * * * It might be more accurate to say that a claim for attorney fe 2020Accord State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 600 , 368 P3d 446 (2016) (“[W]hen a plaintiff brings a claim against a defendant for damages, the plaintiff may seek, as an element of damages, attor- ney fees and costs that the plaintiff incurred in litigation with a third party.”); Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noue Development, LLC, 357 Or 333 , 361 n 15, 353 P3d 563 (2015) (“The third-party litigation exception to the American rule [that parties pay their own attorney fees] has been adopted by almost every jurisdiction in the United States. * * * It might be more accurate to say that a claim for attorney fe | 3 | 2015–2020 |
Osborne v. Hay
green
2 sentences2015That holding is consistent with other authorities cited in Huffstutter recognizing that such attorney fees can be claimed as damages, and we followed Huffstutter in Osborne v. Hay, 284 Or 133 , 585 P2d 674 (1978). 2015That holding is consistent with other authorities cited in Huffstutter recognizing that such attorney fees can be claimed as damages, and we followed Huffstutter in Osborne v. Hay, 284 Or 133 , 585 P2d 674 (1978). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Riedel v. First Nat. Bank of Or.
green
2 sentences1990Oregon courts follow this “American rule.” See, e.g., Lewis v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 139, 142 , 653 P2d 1265 (1982); Riedel v. First National Bank, 287 Or 285, 290-91 , 598 P2d 302 (1979); Hughes v. Bembry, 256 Or 172, 177-78 , 470 P2d 151 (1970). 1990Oregon courts follow this “American rule.” See, e.g., Lewis v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 139, 142 , 653 P2d 1265 (1982); Riedel v. First National Bank, 287 Or 285, 290-91 , 598 P2d 302 (1979); Hughes v. Bembry, 256 Or 172, 177-78 , 470 P2d 151 (1970). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society
red
2 sentences2021See Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 381 , 67 P3d 391 (2003) (“Ordinarily, a court awards attorney fees to a litigant only if a statute or contract authorizes such an award.”); Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 US 240, 247 , 95 S Ct 1612 , 44 L Ed 2d 141 (1975) (describing the “American rule”). 2021See Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 381 , 67 P3d 391 (2003) (“Ordinarily, a court awards attorney fees to a litigant only if a statute or contract authorizes such an award.”); Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 US 240, 247 , 95 S Ct 1612 , 44 L Ed 2d 141 (1975) (describing the “American rule”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gilbert v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers, Local Union No. 701
green
2 sentences2021That rule, however, is not absolute: “This court for many years has recognized an equitable exception to the American rule,” Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk, 342 Or 555, 565 , 157 P3d 176 (2007), and it is well established that an Oregon court may use its inherent equitable power to award attorney fees, even in the absence of a contract or statutory scheme authorizing fees, Gilbert, 237 Or at 137 . 2021That rule, however, is not absolute: “This court for many years has recognized an equitable exception to the American rule,” Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk, 342 Or 555, 565 , 157 P3d 176 (2007), and it is well established that an Oregon court may use its inherent equitable power to award attorney fees, even in the absence of a contract or statutory scheme authorizing fees, Gilbert, 237 Or at 137 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk
green
2 sentences2021That rule, however, is not absolute: “This court for many years has recognized an equitable exception to the American rule,” Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk, 342 Or 555, 565 , 157 P3d 176 (2007), and it is well established that an Oregon court may use its inherent equitable power to award attorney fees, even in the absence of a contract or statutory scheme authorizing fees, Gilbert, 237 Or at 137 . 2021That rule, however, is not absolute: “This court for many years has recognized an equitable exception to the American rule,” Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk, 342 Or 555, 565 , 157 P3d 176 (2007), and it is well established that an Oregon court may use its inherent equitable power to award attorney fees, even in the absence of a contract or statutory scheme authorizing fees, Gilbert, 237 Or at 137 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kamyr, Inc. v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION
green
2 sentences2020The doc- trine does not establish a stand-alone cause of action, see Kamyr, Inc. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 268 Or 130 , 519 P2d 1031 (1974), nor is it an exception to the so-called American rule that parties are responsible for their own litigation costs and fees. 2020The doc- trine does not establish a stand-alone cause of action, see Kamyr, Inc. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 268 Or 130 , 519 P2d 1031 (1974), nor is it an exception to the so-called American rule that parties are responsible for their own litigation costs and fees. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Draper v. MULLENNEX
green
2 sentences2019See Peace River Seed Co-Op v. Proseeds Marketing, 355 Or 44, 65 , 322 P3d 531 (2014); Draper v. Mullennex et al, 225 Or 267, 271 , 357 P2d 519 (1960) (“If plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for attorney’s fees against a defendant by reason of any special contract 5 Despite the trial court’s ruling that ORS 20.077 does not support defen- dant’s entitlement to fees because “it did not prevail in the dispute or as to the contract claim as a whole,” defendant’s briefing does not cite ORS 20.077, let alone develop an argument as to why claims for breach of an express contract and claims for breach 2019See Peace River Seed Co-Op v. Proseeds Marketing, 355 Or 44, 65 , 322 P3d 531 (2014); Draper v. Mullennex et al, 225 Or 267, 271 , 357 P2d 519 (1960) (“If plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for attorney’s fees against a defendant by reason of any special contract 5 Despite the trial court’s ruling that ORS 20.077 does not support defen- dant’s entitlement to fees because “it did not prevail in the dispute or as to the contract claim as a whole,” defendant’s briefing does not cite ORS 20.077, let alone develop an argument as to why claims for breach of an express contract and claims for breach | 1 | 2019–2019 |
American Can Co. v. Davis
green
2 sentences2000For all three reasons, therefore, we adhere to Abercrombie and our own precedents. 9 The Oregon analog to that doctrine — the “American Can doctrine” — also is identified by the name of its case law source: American Can Co. v. Davis, 28 Or App 207 , 559 P2d 898 (1976), rev den 278 Or 393 (1977). 10 Almost in passing, OTECC asserts that extrinsic evidence should not be considered in interpreting the price-modification provision because the contract contained an integration clause. 2000For all three reasons, therefore, we adhere to Abercrombie and our own precedents. 9 The Oregon analog to that doctrine — the “American Can doctrine” — also is identified by the name of its case law source: American Can Co. v. Davis, 28 Or App 207 , 559 P2d 898 (1976), rev den 278 Or 393 (1977). 10 Almost in passing, OTECC asserts that extrinsic evidence should not be considered in interpreting the price-modification provision because the contract contained an integration clause. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sheets v. Knight
green
2 sentences1995Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or 220, 229 , 779 P2d 1000 (1989). 1995Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or 220, 229 , 779 P2d 1000 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lewis v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences1990Oregon courts follow this “American rule.” See, e.g., Lewis v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 139, 142 , 653 P2d 1265 (1982); Riedel v. First National Bank, 287 Or 285, 290-91 , 598 P2d 302 (1979); Hughes v. Bembry, 256 Or 172, 177-78 , 470 P2d 151 (1970). 1990Oregon courts follow this “American rule.” See, e.g., Lewis v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 139, 142 , 653 P2d 1265 (1982); Riedel v. First National Bank, 287 Or 285, 290-91 , 598 P2d 302 (1979); Hughes v. Bembry, 256 Or 172, 177-78 , 470 P2d 151 (1970). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Hughes v. Bembry
green
2 sentences1990Oregon courts follow this “American rule.” See, e.g., Lewis v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 139, 142 , 653 P2d 1265 (1982); Riedel v. First National Bank, 287 Or 285, 290-91 , 598 P2d 302 (1979); Hughes v. Bembry, 256 Or 172, 177-78 , 470 P2d 151 (1970). 1990Oregon courts follow this “American rule.” See, e.g., Lewis v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 139, 142 , 653 P2d 1265 (1982); Riedel v. First National Bank, 287 Or 285, 290-91 , 598 P2d 302 (1979); Hughes v. Bembry, 256 Or 172, 177-78 , 470 P2d 151 (1970). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Estate of Schluttig
green
2 sentences1953The instances in which American residents and presumably citizens inherited as legatees of German testators, come within the rule stated in Schluttig’s Estate, supra, 36 Cal2d 416, 218 P2d 819 , 224 P2d 695 , when that court said: “* * * Clearly, when it is shown that the taking of estates by testamentary disposition or succession is a matter of sufferance determinable in accordance with directions of the Nazi officials and their concepts of national sentiment, there is no ‘reciprocal right’ as that term is used in the Probate Code.” The nebulous provisions of the German decrees vested in Germ 1953The instances in which American residents and presumably citizens inherited as legatees of German testators, come within the rule stated in Schluttig’s Estate, supra, 36 Cal2d 416, 218 P2d 819 , 224 P2d 695 , when that court said: “* * * Clearly, when it is shown that the taking of estates by testamentary disposition or succession is a matter of sufferance determinable in accordance with directions of the Nazi officials and their concepts of national sentiment, there is no ‘reciprocal right’ as that term is used in the Probate Code.” The nebulous provisions of the German decrees vested in Germ | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.