8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greb v. Murray
green
2 sentences2008The parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present affidavits, declarations and other evidence relevant to any factual issue, including any factors that ORS 20.075 or any other statute or rule requires or permits the court to consider in awarding or denying attorney fees or costs and disbursements.” Our case law on attorney fee apportionment echoes the evidentiary hearing requirement in ORCP 68 C(4)(c)(i). *334 In Greb v. Murray, 102 Or App 573, 576 , 795 P2d 1087 (1990), we held that, “[w]hen a party prevails in an action that encompasses both a claim for which attorney fees are a 2008The parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present affidavits, declarations and other evidence relevant to any factual issue, including any factors that ORS 20.075 or any other statute or rule requires or permits the court to consider in awarding or denying attorney fees or costs and disbursements.” Our case law on attorney fee apportionment echoes the evidentiary hearing requirement in ORCP 68 C(4)(c)(i). *334 In Greb v. Murray, 102 Or App 573, 576 , 795 P2d 1087 (1990), we held that, “[w]hen a party prevails in an action that encompasses both a claim for which attorney fees are a | 7 | 1992–2022 |
West Hills Development Co. v. Inc
green
2 sentences2025Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., 284 Or App 133, 144 , 391 P3d 851 (2017) (“When a party prevails on an action that encompasses both a claim for which attor- ney fees are authorized and a claim for which they are not, the court must apportion the fees incurred for each claim. 2025Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., 284 Or App 133, 144 , 391 P3d 851 (2017) (“When a party prevails on an action that encompasses both a claim for which attor- ney fees are authorized and a claim for which they are not, the court must apportion the fees incurred for each claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nelson v. Emerald People's Utility District
green
2 sentences2008It may award only the fees reasonably incurred for the claim for which attorney fees are authorized, except when there are issues common to both claims.” (Emphasis in original.) In Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 116 Or App 366 , 840 P2d 1384 (1992), rev’d on other grounds, 318 Or 99 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993), we again addressed the issue of attorney fee apportionment. 2008It may award only the fees reasonably incurred for the claim for which attorney fees are authorized, except when there are issues common to both claims.” (Emphasis in original.) In Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 116 Or App 366 , 840 P2d 1384 (1992), rev’d on other grounds, 318 Or 99 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993), we again addressed the issue of attorney fee apportionment. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Nelson v. Emerald People's Utility District
green
2 sentences2008It may award only the fees reasonably incurred for the claim for which attorney fees are authorized, except when there are issues common to both claims.” (Emphasis in original.) In Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 116 Or App 366 , 840 P2d 1384 (1992), rev’d on other grounds, 318 Or 99 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993), we again addressed the issue of attorney fee apportionment. 2008It may award only the fees reasonably incurred for the claim for which attorney fees are authorized, except when there are issues common to both claims.” (Emphasis in original.) In Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 116 Or App 366 , 840 P2d 1384 (1992), rev’d on other grounds, 318 Or 99 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993), we again addressed the issue of attorney fee apportionment. | 1 | 2008–2008 |