KING v. TALCOTT

E83-0064; CA A35006.

723 P.2d 1058 (1986)

80 Or. App. 701

B.J. KING, aka Richard Knight, Jr., and Watson Talcott, Appellants—Cross-respondents, v. Neil C. TALCOTT, Respondent—Cross-appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided August 13, 1986.

Reconsideration Denied September 26, 1986.

Review Denied October 21, 1986.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Dean Heiling, Roseburg, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was Heiling & Morrison, P.C., Roseburg.

Bruce H. Anderson, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant. With him on the brief was Hutchinson, Anderson, Cox & Teising, P.C., Eugene.

Before JOSEPH, C.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN and YOUNG, JJ.


YOUNG, Judge.

On plaintiff's appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for reformation. On defendant's cross-appeal, the issue is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant reasonable attorney fees for successfully defending the reformation claim and a claim for an implied easement. We affirm on the appeal and reverse in part and remand on the cross-appeal.

Plaintiff Watson...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases