Jump to Navigation

Court of Appeals Opinions in Representative Cases Handled by Margaret H. Leek Leiberan

  • Berry and Berry - Modification of child support to include cost of child's education as part of calculation
  • Briggs v. Lamvik (2011) - Dispute between brother and sister over brother's claim to sole ownership of father's bank account and real property after father's death
  • Brown v. MacDonald - Court of Appeals reversed trial court denial of motion to terminate conservatorship. Elderly man regained control over his own finances after Court of Appeals held that conservator failed to prove he was still financially incompetent.
  • Cat Champion Corporation v. Primrose - Established authority of court to enter limited protective order that allowed permanent placement of cats in safe homes after criminal animal abuse charge was dropped because owner was incompetent to stand trial
  • Connelly and Connelly - Reversal of trial court order and return of custody of teenage boys to mother holding no substantial change of circumstances
  • D&L Excavating and Trucking v. Eden Gate Inc. - Contract dispute involving clean-up of toxic chemicals from leaking gasoline tank
  • Dow and Dow (2013) - Modification of spousal support (alimony)
  • Foster v. Gibbons - Boundary dispute which resulted in reversal of trial court and awarded disputed land to client
  • Goddard v. Farmers Insurance Company - Action for damages against insurance company for excess judgment entered against its insured after company refused to settle within policy limits
  • Jensen v. Bevard - Representing mother in successfully overturning trial court award of custody of child to grandmother
  • Harper v. Mt. Hood Comm College (2016) - Whistleblower case brought by labor relations director after she was fired. Court of Appeals reversed circuit court and held that fact her job was to report problems did not take away whistleblower protections if she was fired because of report. Court found sufficient evidence was presented to defeat summary judgment and remanded for trial.
  • Jensen v. Bevard (on reconsideration) - Granted reconsideration to provide instructions to guide transition of custody back to mother
  • Kim v. Park - Reversing trial court's grant of strict foreclosure of land sale contract
  • Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2012)--Modification of custody changing custody to father because of mother's continual interference with father's parenting time.
  • McArthur and Paradis - Held parenting time should be modified to accommodate religious beliefs in Sabbath of custodial parent
  • Muresan v. Philadelphia Romanian Pentecostal Church - Slander and invasion of privacy case
  • Olesberg and Olesberg - Increased spousal support, added permanent maintenance support, and awarded wife share of husband's inheritance
  • Owens Koenig and Koenig - Division of IRAs and pensions in divorce of long-term marriage
  • Roe v. Doe - Interpret settlement agreement to not include "gag order" which would have prohibited client from informing media as to the facts and cause of her injury
  • Turudic v. Stephens and Susan Estates Homeowners Association - Dispute with homeowners association over right to keep cougar in zoo quality cage on property and neighbor's retaliatory placement of outhouse visible from picture window
  • Vanlaningham and Vanlaningham (2016) - Reversed and remanded modification of spousal support on husband’s challenge that support was not reduced enough. Court of Appeals held that circuit court erred in not considering all of wife’s inherited assets when determining need for spousal support.
  • Willis v. Winters, Supreme Court, Amicus for ACLU (2011) - Supreme Court, Amicus for ACLU - Right of holder of legal medical marijuana license to obtain concealed handgun permit
Jensen & Leiberan Attorneys at Law

One Lincoln Center
10300 SW Greenburg Road, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97223
Phone: 503-446-2521
Fax: 503-646-2053
Portland Law Office »
Contact Us Via E-mail »
Print this Page »
Additional Resources »

BBB Accredited Business
Contact Us Today


The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.