Rogerson v. Baker
| Jurisdiction | Oregon |
| Parties | Louis G. ROGERSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Rodney L. Rogerson, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert N. BAKER, Defendant-Respondent-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy A. ROGERSON, Third Party Defendant-Respondent, Brian C. Acheson, Defendant. ; CA 19937. . On Third Party Defendant-Respondent's Cost Bill |
| Citation | 56 Or.App. 748,642 P.2d 1216 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-7560,78-7560 |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1982 |
Paul D. Clayton, Luvaas, Cobb, Richards & Fraser, P.C., Eugene, for the cost bill.
John C. Sihler, Eugene, appeared contra for third party plaintiff-appellant.
Before THORNTON, P.J., and WARDEN and YOUNG, JJ.
The opinion on the merits in this case (55 Or.App. 1029, --- P.2d ---- (1982)) did not contain any reference to costs on appeal. However, the costs sheet attached to the title page of the opinion carried the notation: "No costs are awarded." Nonetheless, the prevailing party, Rogerson, has filed a cost bill, together with an argument that certain legislative changes made in 1981 do not permit the court to deny costs to the prevailing party in a civil case and that, in any event, because the Court of Appeals opinion itself did not deny costs, the notation on the costs sheet is of no effect.
We reject each contention.
Under former ORS 20.030 (repealed by Or. Laws 1979, ch. 284, § 199), former ORS 20.040 (repealed by Or. Laws 1981, ch. 898, § 53) and former ORS 20.060 (repealed by Or. Laws 1981, ch. 898, § 53), costs were to be allowed to a prevailing party in an equity suit "unless the court otherwise directs" and to the prevailing party in an action at law as a matter "of course." 1 While those statutes did not specifically refer to prevailing parties on appeal, historically the Supreme Court considered them to govern appellate court authority to award costs. See, e.g., Gowin v. Heider, 237 Or. 266, 319, 391 P.2d 630 (1964). The Supreme Court also relied in Gowin on former ORS 20.070(1) (repealed by Or. Laws 1981, ch. 898, § 53) for the proposition that "in the Supreme Court costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party." 237 Or. at 321, 391 P.2d 630. However, that statute provided only for the so-called "prevailing party" fee, not for other costs.
The only statutes that now govern costs on appeal, other than the special "prevailing party" fee now provided for in ORS 20.190, are ORS 20.310, 20.320 and 20.330. Those statutes do not contain authority for the award of costs; they simply describe what costs shall be allowed "(w)hen costs are allowed to the prevailing party on appeal to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals."
Under ORCP 2:
"All procedural distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity are hereby abolished, except for those distinctions specifically provided for by these rules, by statute, or by the Constitution of this state."
ORCP 68 B, Or. Laws 1981, ch. 898, § 7, supplants former ORS 20.040 and provides:
We read ORCP 68 B to be authority for the appellate courts to award costs and disbursements to the prevailing party in civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosley v. Allstate Insurance Co.
...attorney fees under ORS 742.061. We review a trial court's decision to award costs for an abuse of discretion. Rogerson v. Baker, 56 Or.App. 748, 750, 642 P.2d 1216 (1982). The trial court denied costs and disbursements to both parties due to the confusion surrounding plaintiffs' attempt to......
-
AutoLend, IAP, Inc. v. Auto Depot, Inc.
...party. Thus, we review the trial court's decision not to award costs and disbursements for abuse of discretion. Rogerson v. Baker, 56 Or.App. 748, 750, 642 P.2d 1216 (1982). Auto Depot defeated plaintiff's claims against it and plaintiff prevailed on Auto Depot's counterclaim for breach of ......
-
Selective Services, Inc. v. AAA Liquidating and Auction Service, Inc.
...for reconsideration of AAA's cost bill. See Wick v. Viking Ins. Co., 105 Or.App. 33, 39, 803 P.2d 1199 (1990); Rogerson v. Baker, 56 Or.App. 748, 642 P.2d 1216 (1982). Defendant Guite assigns error to the trial court's failure to award him costs under ORCP 54 A as a prevailing party on the ......
-
Wihtol v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor
...can not say that his refusal to do so in this case was a manifest abuse of discretion." Id. (citations omitted). In Rogerson v. Baker, 56 Or App 748, 642 P2d 1216 (1982), the plaintiff challenged the Court of Appeals' denial of his requests for costs under the newly adopted ORCP 68. The cou......
-
§ 46.1 Costs and Disbursements
..."authority in all civil cases to deny costs and disbursements to both sides in its discretion." Rogerson v. Baker, 56 Or App 748, 750, 642 P2d 1216 (1982); see also Vill. at N. Pointe Condos. Ass'n v. Bloedel Constr. Co., 278 Or App 354, 376-79, 374 P3d 978, adh'd to as modified on recons, ......
-
§ 30.5 Costs and Disbursements
...(see § 30.2-3(a)), there must be some basis for an award of costs apart from ORS 20.310. See Rogerson v. Baker, 56 Or App 748, 749-50, 642 P2d 1216 (1982); Carlson v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 77 Or App 49, 711 P2d 199 (1985). Furthermore, there must be an appellate decision that effectively brings ......