1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 722 P.2d
  5. 722 P.2d 1229 (1986)
 

ROACH v. MEAD

CC A8303-01681; CA A32821; SC S32368, S32382.

722 P.2d 1229 (1986)

301 Or. 383

William ROACH, Petitioner on review/Respondent on review, v. Kenneth E. MEAD, dba Berentson & Mead, Respondent on review, and David J. Berentson, dba Berentson & Mead, Respondent on review/Petitioner on review.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Decided July 29, 1986.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Paul R. Duden, of Tooze, Marshall, Shenker, Holloway & Duden, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for review for petitioner on review/respondent on review Roach.

Emil R. Berg, of Hallmark, Griffith & Keating, P.C., Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for review for respondent on review/petitioner on review Berentson.

No appearance for respondent on review Mead.

Before PETERSON, C.J., and LENT, LINDE, CAMPBELL, CARSON and JONES, JJ.

JONES, Justice.

The issues in this case are: (1) Is the partner of an attorney who negligently advises a client vicariously liable to the client for damages? (2) Does Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 to 646.652, apply to the actions of defendant's partner, thus entitling plaintiff to attorney fees?

At trial, defendant, David J. Berentson, moved for a directed verdict, contending that he was not vicariously liable for the negligent...

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