Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

CAPUTO v. CAPUTO, 53 Or. App. 83 (1981)

CAPUTO, Respondent, v. CAPUTO, Respondent, LAWRENCE, aka Bachman, Appellant., 630 P.2d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)

Type
Opinion
Court
Oregon
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Date
1981-07-06
Topic
general

CAPUTO v. CAPUTO, 53 Or. App. 83 (1981) 630 P.2d 418 CAPUTO, Respondent, v. CAPUTO, Respondent, LAWRENCE, aka Bachman, Appellant. No. 77-11-86, CA 19376Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted April 22, 1981 Affirmed July 6, 1981 Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CAPUTO v. CAPUTO, 53 Or. App. 83 (1981). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CAPUTO v. CAPUTO,53 Or. App. 83(1981)
630 P.2d 418
CAPUTO,Respondent,v. CAPUTO,Respondent,LAWRENCE, aka Bachman,Appellant.
No. 77-11-86, CA 19376
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued and submitted April 22, 1981
Affirmed July 6, 1981
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County.

Winston L. Bradshaw, Judge.
Keith R. Swensen, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Thorpe and Swensen, Portland.

Anthony Barker, Portland, argued the cause for respondent James Bruce Caputo. William W. Shatzer, Portland, filed the brief for respondent James Bruce Caputo. With him on the brief was Douglas H. Stearns, P.C., Portland.

Charles W. Carnese, Portland, waived appearance for respondent James Caputo.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. No costs to either party.Page 84
PER CURIAM.
This appeal presents purely a fact question which is to be resolved by a determination of the relative credibility of the parties and their respective witnesses. The trial judge resolved this issue and we agree with that determination.

Affirmed.Page 85