Rose v. Rose

566 P.2d 180, 279 Or. 27, 1977 Ore. LEXIS 794
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 6, 1977
DocketTC 34-155, SC 24734
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 566 P.2d 180 (Rose v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rose v. Rose, 566 P.2d 180, 279 Or. 27, 1977 Ore. LEXIS 794 (Or. 1977).

Opinions

[29]*29TOMPKINS, J.,

Pro Tempore.

This is a suit in equity in which plaintiffs seek to establish an access easement across land of defendants-intervenors. Defendant claims a leasehold interest in that portion of the land lying in the roadway. Answering separately, both defendant and defendants-intervenors counterclaimed for injunctions to prevent plaintiffs from using the roadway and for incidental money damages allegedly resulting from trespasses by plaintiffs in using the roadway.

The trial court denied equitable relief to plaintiffs and, with some modifications, granted the equitable relief sought by defendant and defendants-intervenors. Along with small amounts of incidental damages, attorney fees were allowed as claimed in a cost bill. Plaintiffs appeal.

The briefs and the transcript of testimony are replete with references to the exhibits, apparently consisting of maps, deeds, letters, photographs, a survey report, and a variance application. Plaintiffs, as appellants, did not designate the exhibits as a part of the record on appeal,1 and without them we are unable fairly to consider and understand the assignments of error and arguments advanced in this court.

We examine the record on appeal, therefore, only to determine if the pleadings are sufficient to support the decree.2 They do, except for the matter of attorney fees. Defendant and defendants-intervenors rely upon ORS 20.080 to uphold the award of attorney fees. That statute applies only to actions at law, not suits in equity. The award of attorney fees is reversed. In all other respects the decision below is affirmed. No party will recover costs and disbursements in this court.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to set aside the award of attorney fees.

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

Related

Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
511 P.3d 1101 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2022)
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell??
475 P.3d 437 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2020)
Stephenson v. Pierson
929 P.2d 329 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1996)
Bunnell v. Bernau
865 P.2d 473 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
Ellison v. Watson
633 P.2d 840 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
Reeves v. National Hydraulics Co.
632 P.2d 1306 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
Shumate v. Robinson
627 P.2d 1295 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
Troutman v. Erlandson
605 P.2d 1200 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
Rose v. Rose
566 P.2d 180 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
566 P.2d 180, 279 Or. 27, 1977 Ore. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-rose-or-1977.