Chase v. Vernam

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that ORS 659A.885(1) states only that the court “may” award fees to “the prevailing party” but that, “under our case law, a court has discretion to allow attorney fees to a prevailing defendant under ORS 659A.885(1
• indicating that an objection to an attorney fee statement falls within the scope of ORCP 15 D
• reasoning that, under Oregon case law, a court can only award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant under ORS 659A.885(1) when the plaintiff’s claim is brought in bad faith or is unreasonable or unfounded
• such a determination is a legal conclusion subject to review for legal error when challenged
• “[U]nder our case law, a court has discretion to allow attorney fees to a pre- vailing defendant under ORS 659A.885(1) only when the plaintiff’s claim is brought in bad faith or is unreasonable or unfounded.” (Emphasis added.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).