prevailing party on each claim in Oregon

14 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2019 0 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Beggs v. Hartgreen orctapp · 2008 · cited in 10 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2009–2019 2 sentences 2019“To determine who is the prevailing party on each claim, a court must weigh ‘what was sought by each party against the result obtained.’ ” Beggs v. Hart, 221 Or App 528 , 537–38, 191 P3d 747 (2008). “[I]t does not necessarily follow that, merely because a party does not obtain all the relief sought, a party is not a prevailing party[.]” 221 Or App at 536 . 2019“To determine who is the prevailing party on each claim, a court must weigh ‘what was sought by each party against the result obtained.’ ” Beggs v. Hart, 221 Or App 528 , 537–38, 191 P3d 747 (2008). “[I]t does not necessarily follow that, merely because a party does not obtain all the relief sought, a party is not a prevailing party[.]” 221 Or App at 536 .	3	10
Robert Camel Contracting, Inc. v. Krautscheidgreen orctapp · 2006 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016 2 sentences 2016See Robert Camel Contracting, Inc. v. Krautscheid, 205 Or App 498, 503 , 134 P3d 1065 (2006) (in actions involving multiple claims, ORS 20.077 requires that the court “determine the prevailing party on each claim and award attorney fees accordingly”). 2016See Robert Camel Contracting, Inc. v. Krautscheid, 205 Or App 498, 503 , 134 P3d 1065 (2006) (in actions involving multiple claims, ORS 20.077 requires that the court “determine the prevailing party on each claim and award attorney fees accordingly”).	2	3
Brennan v. La Tourelle Apartmentsgreen orctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See ORS 20.077(1) (“In any action or suit in which one or more claims are asserted for which an award of attorney fees is either authorized or required, the prevailing party on each claim shall be determined as provided in this section.”); ORS 20.190 (setting forth prevailing party fees); Brennan v. La Tourelle Apartments, 184 Or App 235, 243, 245 , 245 n 2, 56 P3d 423 (2002) (concluding that trial court was required to designate a prevailing party with respect to claims under ORS 90.255, but “expressing] no opinion as to whether there is a need to designate a prevailing party regarding other 2014See ORS 20.077(1) (“In any action or suit in which one or more claims are asserted for which an award of attorney fees is either authorized or required, the prevailing party on each claim shall be determined as provided in this section.”); ORS 20.190 (setting forth prevailing party fees); Brennan v. La Tourelle Apartments, 184 Or App 235, 243, 245 , 245 n 2, 56 P3d 423 (2002) (concluding that trial court was required to designate a prevailing party with respect to claims under ORS 90.255, but “expressing] no opinion as to whether there is a need to designate a prevailing party regarding other	1	1
Lemargie v. Johnsongreen orctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Lemargie v. Johnson, 212 Or App 451 , 454 n 3, 157 P3d 1284 (2007) (“Under ORS 20.077, there can be more than one prevailing party in actions that involve multiple claims or counterclaims [.]”); Robert Camel Contracting, Inc. v. Krautscheid, 205 Or App 498, 503-05 , 134 P3d 1065 (2006) (“[I]n the context of actions involving multiple claims, the legislature intended the courts to determine the prevailing party on each claim and award attorney fees accordingly.”). 4 To determine who is the prevailing party on each claim, a court must weigh “what was 538 sought by each party against the res 2008See Lemargie v. Johnson, 212 Or App 451 , 454 n 3, 157 P3d 1284 (2007) (“Under ORS 20.077, there can be more than one prevailing party in actions that involve multiple claims or counterclaims [.]”); Robert Camel Contracting, Inc. v. Krautscheid, 205 Or App 498, 503-05 , 134 P3d 1065 (2006) (“[I]n the context of actions involving multiple claims, the legislature intended the courts to determine the prevailing party on each claim and award attorney fees accordingly.”). 4 To determine who is the prevailing party on each claim, a court must weigh “what was 538 sought by each party against the res	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Lawrence v. Peel green orctapp · 1980 2 sentences 2016“To determine who is the prevailing party on each claim, a court must weigh ‘what was /// FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150369N 9 sought by each party against the result obtained.’ ” Beggs v. Hart, 221 Or App 528 , 537–38, 191 P3d 747 (2008) (quoting Lawrence v. Peel, 45 Or App 233, 243 , 607 P2d 1386 (1980)). 2016“To determine who is the prevailing party on each claim, a court must weigh ‘what was /// FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150369N 9 sought by each party against the result obtained.’ ” Beggs v. Hart, 221 Or App 528 , 537–38, 191 P3d 747 (2008) (quoting Lawrence v. Peel, 45 Or App 233, 243 , 607 P2d 1386 (1980)).	7	2008–2016
State v. Wyatt green or · 2000 1 sentence 2009Wyatt, 331 Or at 343 . 14 ORS 20.077 provides, in part: “(1) In any action or suit in which one or more claims are asserted for which an award of attorney fees is either authorized or required, the prevailing party on each claim shall be determined as provided in this section.	1	2009–2009
Larson v. Trachsel green or · 1978 2 sentences 2008It may be that there is more than one prevailing party in this case, but any initial determination must be made on a claim-by-claim basis. 5 Reversed and remanded on claims for attorney fees; otherwise affirmed. 1 See also Larson v. Trachsel, 282 Or 247, 249-50 , 577 P2d 928 (1978); Rem Metals Corp. v. Logan, 278 Or 715 , 72?, 565 P2d 1080 (1977); Lawrence v. Peel, 45 Or App 233,235 , 607 P2d 1386 (1980). 2 The trial court found plaintiff to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. 2008It may be that there is more than one prevailing party in this case, but any initial determination must be made on a claim-by-claim basis. 5 Reversed and remanded on claims for attorney fees; otherwise affirmed. 1 See also Larson v. Trachsel, 282 Or 247, 249-50 , 577 P2d 928 (1978); Rem Metals Corp. v. Logan, 278 Or 715 , 72?, 565 P2d 1080 (1977); Lawrence v. Peel, 45 Or App 233,235 , 607 P2d 1386 (1980). 2 The trial court found plaintiff to be an independent contractor rather than an employee.	1	2008–2008
Rem Metals Corp. v. Logan green or · 1977 2 sentences 2008It may be that there is more than one prevailing party in this case, but any initial determination must be made on a claim-by-claim basis. 5 Reversed and remanded on claims for attorney fees; otherwise affirmed. 1 See also Larson v. Trachsel, 282 Or 247, 249-50 , 577 P2d 928 (1978); Rem Metals Corp. v. Logan, 278 Or 715 , 72?, 565 P2d 1080 (1977); Lawrence v. Peel, 45 Or App 233,235 , 607 P2d 1386 (1980). 2 The trial court found plaintiff to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. 2008It may be that there is more than one prevailing party in this case, but any initial determination must be made on a claim-by-claim basis. 5 Reversed and remanded on claims for attorney fees; otherwise affirmed. 1 See also Larson v. Trachsel, 282 Or 247, 249-50 , 577 P2d 928 (1978); Rem Metals Corp. v. Logan, 278 Or 715 , 72?, 565 P2d 1080 (1977); Lawrence v. Peel, 45 Or App 233,235 , 607 P2d 1386 (1980). 2 The trial court found plaintiff to be an independent contractor rather than an employee.	1	2008–2008
Carlson v. Blumenstein green or · 1982 2 sentences 2006However, defendant argues that the analysis in Carlson v. Blumstein, 293 Or 494 , 651 P2d 710 (1982), still controls despite the enactment of ORS 20.077. 2006However, defendant argues that the analysis in Carlson v. Blumstein, 293 Or 494 , 651 P2d 710 (1982), still controls despite the enactment of ORS 20.077.	1	2006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.490 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.427 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.412 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.007 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.205 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.210 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OR 14 (2006–2019) FL 3 (2003–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance