“when there are cross-motions for summary judgment and granting of one and denial of the other are both assigned as error, both are subject to review.”
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Williams v. Gaylord
when there are cross-motions for summary judgment and granting of one and denial of the other are both assigned as error, both are subject to review.
cited
Cited "see"
Wetherell v. Douglas County
See City of West Linn v. LCDC, 200 Or App 269, 275-76 , 113 P3d 935 , rev den, 339 Or 609 (2006) (so stating, noting that goals occupy a “preferred position” over rules).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Quigley and Quigley
See Hickam, 223 Or App at 306 (concluding that “the trial court plainly erred in denying husband par- enting time without making [the statutorily required] find- ings” and that “it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to review the error” given that “the interests of the parties and the gravity of the error are significant * * * and the ends of justice would be served by remanding for further proceed- ings”); see also McArthur and Paradis, 201 Or App 530, 535 , 120 P3d 904 , rev den, 339 Or 609 (2005) (parenting time Nonprecedential Memo Op: 326 Or App 820 (2023) 823 decisions…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GEIER
v.
LAMPERT.
v.
LAMPERT.
S52885.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Dec 6, 2005.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
Petition for review denied.