Relational Systems Intern. Corp. v. Cable
| Decision Date | 17 March 1987 |
| Citation | 303 Or. 71,733 P.2d 1379 |
| Parties | RELATIONAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Respondent on Review, v. Martin CABLE, Petitioner on Review. TC 150193; CA A35518; SC S33030. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
James M. Callahan of Bittner & Barker, P.C., Portland, filed the petition for attorney fees for petitioner on review.
Peter R. Chamberlain of Bodyfelt, Mount, Stroup & Chamberlain, Portland, filed the motion to remand for respondent on review.
This case is before us on competing post decision petitions of the parties. Petitioner Cable, who prevailed in this court 1 on the issue of the applicability of a provision in a lease to a dispute between Cable and respondent Relational Systems, petitions for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to another provision of the same lease. For its part, Relational Systems has filed a "Motion to Remand," contending that this court should modify its previous disposition of this case. We conclude that Relational Systems' motion should be allowed; Cable's claim is premature.
This case was originally appealed to the Court of Appeals by Relational Systems, which asserted two assignments of error. The first assignment argued the inapplicability of the lease provision. The second argued that, even if the lease provision were applicable, a separate provision dealing with costs and attorney fees was not applicable. The Court of Appeals agreed with the first assignment of error and, therefore, never reached the second. Relational Systems International v. Cable, 79 Or.App. 712, 720 P.2d 402 (1986). Cable's petition to this court claimed only that the Court of Appeals had erred as to the issue it actually decided; our opinion reversing the Court of Appeals was likewise confined to the first issue.
It follows from the foregoing that there remains an issue as to costs and attorney fees that was briefed by the parties in the Court of Appeals but has never been addressed by either appellate court. We think it also follows that our original disposition in this case, which simply said, "The Court of Appeals is reversed and the trial court is affirmed," was in error. The case should have been remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the attorney fees issue.
Cable's claim for attorney fees and costs is premature and must be denied for two reasons. First, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppi v. West American Ins. Co.
...& Sons v. City of Nashwauk, 373 N.W.2d 744 (Minn.1985); Roark v. Allen, 633 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.1982). But see Relational Systems International v. Cable, 303 Or. 71, 733 P.2d 1379 (1987). Thus, we may, upon granting further review which results in the reversal of a decision of the Court of Appe......
-
Fleming v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N
...of error and that we should remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. See Relational Systems International v. Cable, 303 Or. 71, 72, 733 P.2d 1379 (1987) (describing when this court should remand to consider remaining assignments of USAA and amici raise a number of o......
-
Relational Systems Intern. Corp. v. Cable
...P.C., Portland. Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ. ROSSMAN, Judge. This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court 733 P.2d 1379, for the limited purpose of a determination of the attorney fees issue, which, because of our original disposition of this case, Relational......