accounting claim (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

accounting claim in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2015 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)

CaseFollowedCited
Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLPgreen
or · 2004 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006In Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., it was literally foreseeable that the accounting error could delay the offering, resulting in a drop in price due to market fluctuations, because “it is common knowledge that stock prices fluctuate.” 336 Or at 336, 344 .

11
In Re Gildeagreen
or · 1997 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See In re Gildea, 325 Or 281, 290-91 , 936 P2d 975 (1997) (concluding that text of DR 9-101(C)(3) makes clear that requirement that lawyer render all “appropriate” accounts is not preconditioned on client first asking for an accounting).

2006See In re Gildea, 325 Or 281, 290-91 , 936 P2d 975 (1997) (concluding that text of DR 9-101(C)(3) makes clear that requirement that lawyer render all “appropriate” accounts is not preconditioned on client first asking for an accounting).

11
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hedgesgreen
or · 1992 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996See In re Hedges, 313 Or 618, 624 , 836 P2d 119 (1992) (finding violation of former DR 9-101(B)(3), now DR 9-101(C)(3), when lawyer failed to provide accounting of fees previously paid after being requested to do so).

1996See In re Hedges, 313 Or 618, 624 , 836 P2d 119 (1992) (finding violation of former DR 9-101(B)(3), now DR 9-101(C)(3), when lawyer failed to provide accounting of fees previously paid after being requested to do so).

11
Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.green
scotus · 1944 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993See Power Comm’n v. Hope Gas Co., 320 US 591 , 64 S Ct 281 , 88 L Ed 333 (1944).

1993See Power Comm’n v. Hope Gas Co., 320 US 591 , 64 S Ct 281 , 88 L Ed 333 (1944).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Fontana v. Steenson green
orctapp · 1996
1 sentence

2015We affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff, reasoning that the “defendants needed only to offer uncontroverted evidence of the date of the partnership’s dissolution in order to make a prima facie showing of laches as to plaintiffs accounting claim on Partnership A. Plaintiff offered no evidence to contradict that presumption, and therefore, there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding defendants’ laches defense as to Partnership A. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the accounting claim for Partnership A.” Id. at 233 .

12015–2015
Williams v. SALEM WOMEN'S CLINIC green
orctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2012Williams v. Salem Women’s Clinic, 245 Or App 476, 482 , 263 P3d 1072 (2011).

2012Williams v. Salem Women’s Clinic, 245 Or App 476, 482 , 263 P3d 1072 (2011).

12012–2012
Buchler v. Oregon Corrections Div. green
or · 1993
1 sentence

2006In Buckler, it was literally foreseeable that leaving the keys in a vehicle in the vicinity of prisoners created a risk that a prisoner would escape and engage in criminal activity while at large. 316 Or at 511 .

12006–2006
Paul v. MAZZOCCO green
or · 1960
2 sentences

1982In effect, the majority has eliminated the accounting claim because it involves a question of fact common to the two legal claims. 4 In Paul v. Mazzocco et al, 221 Or 411 , 351 P2d 709 (1960), the court discussed the role of an advisory jury and the scope of appellate review.

1982In effect, the majority has eliminated the accounting claim because it involves a question of fact common to the two legal claims. 4 In Paul v. Mazzocco et al, 221 Or 411 , 351 P2d 709 (1960), the court discussed the role of an advisory jury and the scope of appellate review.

11982–1982
Hall's Western Auto Supply Co. v. Brock neutral
or · 1965
1 sentence

1970The court should take such evidence, if any, as may be necessary in order to determine whether any funds are subject to an accounting under the rule announced in Hall’s Western Auto v. Brock, supra ( 240 Or 85 ).

11970–1970

Where else courts name it

CA 25 (1939–2026) NY 22 (1851–2025) TX 14 (1965–2022) IL 10 (1940–2025) OR 8 (1970–2015) MO 7 (1971–2025) NJ 5 (1991–2020) MS 5 (2005–2018) MA 4 (1947–2013) OH 4 (2000–2024) DE 4 (1977–2026) PA 4 (1998–2021) UT 4 (2005–2023) CO 4 (1991–2026) MI 3 (2011–2024) LA 3 (1986–1996) TN 3 (1944–2016) AZ 3 (1988–1989) WA 3 (1987–2018) OK 2 (2016–2017) MT 2 (1998–2005) GA 2 (1986–2024) ID 2 (1979–2023) SC 2 (2010–2012) MN 2 (1996–2019) FL 2 (1937–2010) AL 2 (1997–2008) KY 2 (2007–2025)

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