Case Name: Bob SMALL, Appellant - Cross-Respondent, v. UMATILLA COUNTY; Commissioners William Hansell, Emile Holeman and Glenn Youngman; William Kent, Bruce Kinsch, Karla Willman, Kevin Willman, Debra Kellogg and Children's Services Division, Defendants, and Carter KERNS, Respondent - Cross-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1997-06-11
Citations: 148 Or. App. 443
Docket Number: CV950714; CA A91109
Parties: Bob SMALL, Appellant - Cross-Respondent, v. UMATILLA COUNTY; Commissioners William Hansell, Emile Holeman and Glenn Youngman; William Kent, Bruce Kinsch, Karla Willman, Kevin Willman, Debra Kellogg and Children’s Services Division, Defendants, and Carter KERNS, Respondent - Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 148
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 16,
affirmed on appeal; reversed and remanded for reconsideration on cross-appeal June 11,1997
Bob SMALL, Appellant - Cross-Respondent, v. UMATILLA COUNTY; Commissioners William Hansell, Emile Holeman and Glenn Youngman; William Kent, Bruce Kinsch, Karla Willman, Kevin Willman, Debra Kellogg and Children’s Services Division, Defendants, and Carter KERNS, Respondent - Cross-Appellant.
(CV950714; CA A91109)
939 P2d 1190
Paul B. Meadowbrook argued the cause for appellant - cross-respondent. With him on the briefs was Patrick & Meadowbrook.
Robert Norman Ehmann argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent - cross-appellant.
Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This case concerns a summary judgment in favor of defendant Kerns on plaintiffs claims of trespass and interference with economic relations. We affirm on plaintiffs appeal without discussion.
Defendant Kerns cross-appeals, assigning as error the trial court's denial of sanctions, including attorney fees, pursuant to ORCP 17 C. The trial court denied defendant's motion for sanctions without making any factual findings on this issue. Both plaintiff and defendant agree that such findings are required. Polizos v. Skoro, 129 Or App 51, 55-56,877 P2d 662, rev den 320 Or 271 (1994); Plere Publishers, Inc. v. Capital Cities / ABC, Inc., 120 Or App 36, 38-39, 852 P2d 261, rev den 317 Or 583 (1993).
Affirmed on appeal; reversed and remanded for reconsideration of attorney fees on cross-appeal.