Oregon Supreme Court· 6/11/1998

McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.

Citations

957 P.2d 1200
327 Or. 185

How courts have described this case

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

stating that \the practical needs of meaningful appellate review underlie the court's obligation to make explanatory findings\ to support the exercise of discretion
noting that a party is not required to take action to preserve an issue that first arises when the appeals court issues its written order
explaining that, to permit meaningful appellate review, the Court of Appeals must describe the relevant facts and legal criteria supporting its attorney fee awards
reasoning that “[flindings are necessary to assist the appellate court in carrying out a meaningful review of the competing arguments of the parties and the attorney fee decision below”
reasoning that \[f]indings are necessary to assist the appellate court in carrying out a meaningful review of the competing arguments of the parties and the attorney fee decision below\
stating that adequate findings are those that “describe the relevant facts and legal criteria for the court’s decision to award or deny attorney fees in any terms that are sufficiently clear to per- mit meaningful appellate review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, C.J., and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, and Kulongoski

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

98 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.