Ollman v. Active Homes

3 Citing cases

  1. Fischl v. Aust

    566 P.2d 518 (Or. 1977)   Cited 7 times

    Although we review de novo, where the credibility of witnesses is central to an issue of fact, we give substantial weight to the trial court's findings. Lichty v. Merzenich, 278 Or. 209, 213, 563 P.2d 690 (1977); Ollman v. Active Homes, 278 Or. 113, 562 P.2d 1217 (1977). We accept the finding on this issue of credibility which is implicit in the trial court's general finding of the disputed facts in plaintiffs' favor, and hold that defendant was bound by the Subscription Agreement, which by its terms became effective on September 28, 1970, and was therefore obliged to make the required contributions to the trust funds.

  2. Smiley v. King

    564 P.2d 1348 (Or. 1977)   Cited 2 times
    Referring to ORS 93.020 as the statute of frauds

    As we have so often pointed out, when questions of fact in equity cases turn on the credibility of witnesses, we give great weight to the trial court's findings. See, e.g., Ollman v. Active Homes, 278 Or. 113, 562 P.2d 1217 (1977); Merrill v. Merrill, 275 Or. 653, 552 P.2d 249 (1976). For this reason we find, as did the trial court, that the parties' original agreement was that Mrs. King would take title to the real property as trustee for the benefit of herself and her sisters.

  3. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. P

    131 Or. App. 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 22 times
    Recognizing that, even on de novo review, we "give deference to the trial court's credibility findings," but that "[t]he degree of deference we give varies with the importance of the trial court's opportunity to observe the witnesses and our ability to discern the trial court's specific credibility determination," and that "this court is as well equipped as the trial court to make credibility determination" that is "based on a comparison of the witness' testimony with the substance of other evidence"

    See Rohrbacher v. Strain, 95 Or. 1, 12, 186 P. 583 (1920) (concluding that the trial court's findings "have very strong advisory weight" because the court heard the witnesses, observed their manner and appearance, and had "a much better opportunity to judge of their truthfulness * * * than we can possibly have"); see also Krueger v. Ropp, 282 Or. 473, 478, 579 P.2d 847 (1978) ("Although we review equity cases de novo, we give substantial weight to the trial court's findings where * * * those findings depend on the resolution of conflicting testimony and the credibility of the witnesses."); Ollman v. Active Homes, 278 Or. 113, 115, 562 P.2d 1217 (1977) ("As we have frequently said, in reviewing evidence de novo considerable weight is to be given to the trial judge's decision where it rests upon his appraisal of the credibility of the witnesses."); Adamson v. Adamson, 273 Or. 382, 389, 541 P.2d 460 (1975) ("[W]here the testimony is conflicting and the evidence is in equipoise, the credibility of witnesses is decisive and we give considerable weight to the findings of the trial court even though we try the case de novo."); Seitz v. Albina Human Resources Center, 100 Or. App. 665, 674, 788 P.2d 1004 (1990) (same, in context of unlawful employment practice); Hampton v. Sabin, 49 Or. App. 1041, 1047, 621 P.2d 1202 (1980), rev den 290 Or. 519 (1981) (same, in context of rescission of contract); State v. Watkins, 35 Or. App. 87, 89, 581 P.2d 90 (1978) (civil commitment); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Maves, 33 Or. App. 411, 416, 576 P.2d 826 (1978) (termination of parental rights).