McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.

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).

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

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1998-04-23· cited 77×
• McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2002-05-09· cited 23×
• McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1999-03-03· cited 5×
• McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1998-06-11· cited 1×