Prevailing party fees
Source:
Section 20.190 — Prevailing party fees, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors020.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 20.070)
Prevailing party fee cannot be included as part of costs incurred by state and chargeable to convicted criminal defendant. State v. Marino, 25 Or App 817, 551 P2d 131 (1976)
When petition for review is denied, respondent has not prevailed on appeal and there is no basis for awarding costs. U-Cart Concrete v. Farmers Ins., 290 Or 151, 619 P2d 882 (1980)
In general
Petitioners were not entitled to prevailing party fees under this section where after petitioners filed appeal in Court of Appeals Board of Parole withdrew orders appealed from and afforded petitioners relief sought from Court of Appeals. Stelljes/Dumler v. State Board of Parole, 307 Or 365, 769 P2d 177 (1989)
Where agency withdraws order challenged on judicial review under Administrative Procedures Act, petitioner qualifies as prevailing party. Voelz Oil v. Oregon State Fire Marshal, 138 Or App 100, 907 P2d 251 (1995)
Prevailing party fee is available in tax court only under specific tax court statutes, not general statute. Johnson v. Dept. of Revenue, 14 OTR 15 (1996)
Prevailing party fee is available as part of costs incurred by state and chargeable to petitioner for post-conviction relief. Schelin v. Maass, 147 Or App 351, 936 P2d 988 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Availability of enhanced prevailing party fee is intended to penalize improper behavior, not to provide additional means of awarding attorney fees. Gough v. Vaughn, 151 Or App 536, 950 P2d 935 (1997)
Single enhanced prevailing party fee may be divided among more than one prevailing party. Seida v. West Linn-Wilsonville School District 3JT, 169 Or App 418, 9 P3d 150 (2000)
Award of costs and disbursements is not prerequisite to award of enhanced prevailing party fee. LeBrun v. Cal-Am Properties, Inc., 197 Or App 177, 106 P3d 647 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
Appellate court first reviews trial court evaluation of listed factors to see whether determinations of law are correct and whether some evidence supports factual findings, then, if necessary, reviews trial court decision whether to award enhanced prevailing party fee for abuse of discretion. Shumake v. Foshee, 197 Or App 255, 105 P3d 919 (2005)
Where plaintiff filed class action proceeding but proceeding was not certified as class action under ORCP 32, prevailing defendant was not entitled to prevailing party fees in proceeding because exception to recovery applies to proceedings either alleged or maintained as class action pursuant to ORCP 32. Curzi v. Oregon State Lottery, 286 Or App 254, 398 P3d 977 (2017), Sup Ct review denied