Summary
The Supreme Court of Oregon held that a party's complete failure to allege entitlement to attorney fees in a motion for summary judgment, as required by ORCP 68 C(2)(b), could not be excused under ORCP 12 B. The court reversed the attorney-fee award to the University of Oregon and remanded for further proceedings, while leaving the grant of summary judgment undisturbed.
Holdings
- ORCP 12 B does not permit a court to disregard a party's complete failure to allege a right to attorney fees in a motion seeking judgment under ORCP 68 C(2)(b). A supporting memorandum is not a motion and does not constitute an attempt to comply with ORCP 68 C(2)(b).
Questions Presented
- Whether ORCP 12 B permits a court to disregard a party's complete failure to allege its entitlement to attorney fees in a motion seeking judgment, as required by ORCP 68 C(2)(b), when a supporting memorandum asserts the fee claim.
- Whether the University was entitled to attorney fees on Mulier's statutory-duty claim.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (5)
- Mulier v. Johnson, 163 Or. App. 42, 986 P.2d 742 (1999)(reversed in part)
- McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc., 327 Or. 84, 88, 957 P.2d 1200 (1998), adhered to on reconsideration, 327 Or. 185, 957 P.2d 1200 (1998)(followed)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 610-12, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993)(followed)
- Preble v. Department of Revenue, 331 Or. 320, 324, 14 P.3d 613 (2000)(followed)
- Hawkins v. City of La Grande, 315 Or. 57, 63-64, 843 P.2d 400 (1992)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…