TAVERA v. SOUTHLAND CORP., 188 Or. App. 484 (2003)

72 P.3d 124

SONIA TAVERA, Appellant, v. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; KELLIE RIDER, an individual; and SAM DAVIS, an individual, Respondents.

98-2484-L-3; A112509.Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted May 19, 2003.
Filed: July 2, 2003.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County. Rebecca G. Orf, Judge.

G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr. argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr., P. C.

Michael A. Lehner argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Lehner Rodrigues, P. C.

Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and KISTLER and SCHUMAN, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.

Page 485

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants’ motion for mistrial and ordering plaintiff, as a condition for continuing the case, to reimburse defendants’ costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal before the court established a specific amount of those costs and attorney fees; the court took no further action after the appeal was filed. We hold that the order is not appealable and therefore dismiss the appeal.

An order granting a mistrial is generally not an appealable order Heath v. Armore, 208 Or. 533, 302 P.2d 1017 (1956). Plaintiff argues, however, that the order is appealable under ORS 19.205(2)(a) because it affects a substantial right and “in effect determines the action * * * so as to prevent a judgment * * * therein.” The foundation of her position is that she is financially incapable of paying the required costs and attorney fees and the order therefore determines the action as to her. Assuming that financial inability may satisfy the requirements of ORS 19.205(2)(a), the difficulty is that the trial court has not decided the amount that plaintiff must pay. There is evidence in the record that plaintiff is a person of limited means, but without knowing the specific amount, we cannot determine her ability to comply with the court’s order and, thus, cannot say that it in effect prevents a judgment in the case.[1]

Appeal dismissed.

[1] Before argument, the Chief Judge denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal on these grounds. Because the issue is jurisdictional, that action does not affect our ability to consider the question. ORAP 7.15(3).

Page 486

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 72 P.3d 124

Recent Posts

STATE v. MCCARTHY, 501 P.3d 478 (2021)

501 P.3d 478 (2021)369 Or. 129 STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Charles Steven…

9 months ago

STATE EX REL. S.M. v. A.S., 196 P.3d 26 (2008)

044230S0; A134887. 196 P.3d 26 (2008) 223 Or. App. 421 STATE of Oregon ex rel.…

7 years ago

STATE v. McNALLY, 361 Or. 314 (2017)

April 20, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Respondent…

9 years ago

STATE v. HAUGEN, 361 Or. 284 (2017)

March 30, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON,…

9 years ago

IN THE MATTER OF BROWN, 361 Or. 241 (2017)

361 Or. 241 In the Matter of the Compensation of Royce L. Brown, Sr., Claimant.…

9 years ago

IN RE ROLLER, 361 Or 234 (2017)

234                                  March 9, 2017                              No. 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE…

9 years ago