Cited by

Enters., (“It is well established that the testimony of an interested party is competent evidence; interest merely goes to its credibility.”).

Enters., (“It is well established that the testimony of an interested party is competent evidence; interest merely goes to its credibility.”).

Enters., (finding partner "was entitled to seek judicial dissolution of the partnership for cause," despite the partnership agreement only contemplating "voluntary dissolution upon agreement of all partners").

Enters., MOIRBIA v. BONNETT, et al. Decision of the Court 72 (App. 1986).

Enters., (citing Wean Water, Inc. v. Sta-Rite Indus., Inc., P.2d 1285 (App. 1984)).

Enters., (App. 5 MARTINEZ v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court 1986) (“It is well established that the testimony of an interested party is competent evidence; interest merely goes to credibility.”).

Enters., (stating that it is the province of the trial judge, and not the appellate court, to determine the credibility of witnesses).

Enterprises, , this court is not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law, and we may draw our own legal conclusions from the facts the trial court found.

Enterprises, , and review questions of constitutionality de novo.

Imperial Litho-Graphics v. M J Enterprises

Enterprises, , (partner has absolute right to dissolve partnership, but if dissolution is in breach of agreement, this affects amount he may recover upon dissolution); Hunter v. Straube, 273 Or.