Morderosian v. Lamb

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Morderosian v. Lamb

620 P.2d 503, 49 Or. App. 587, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3884

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 8, 1980

DocketNo. 40-035, CA 16923

StatusPublished

This text of 620 P.2d 503 (Morderosian v. Lamb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morderosian v. Lamb, 620 P.2d 503, 49 Or. App. 587, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3884 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the second lawsuit between these parties concerning the purchase and sale of property in Washington County. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the cause was barred by res judicata. The trial court granted defendants’ motion.

We see no need to set out in detail the history of the controversy between these parties leading to the two lawsuits. Suffice it to say that this lawsuit is on the same cause of action as the one previously decided and the issues plaintiffs attempt to raise here could have been litigated in the supplemental proceeding to the first lawsuit. The trial court properly allowed the motion for summary judgment. Troutman v. Erlandson, 287 Or 187, 598 P2d 1211 (1979).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is the second lawsuit between these parties concerning the purchase and sale of property in Washington County. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the cause was barred by res judicata. The trial court granted defendants’ motion.

We see no need to set out in detail the history of the controversy between these parties leading to the two lawsuits. Suffice it to say that this lawsuit is on the same cause of action as the one previously decided and the issues plaintiffs attempt to raise here could have been litigated in the supplemental proceeding to the first lawsuit. The trial court properly allowed the motion for summary judgment. Troutman v. Erlandson, 287 Or 187, 598 P2d 1211 (1979).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 P.2d 503, 49 Or. App. 587, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morderosian-v-lamb-orctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack