Banks v. Wells

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Banks v. Wells

859 P.2d 1177, 123 Or. App. 356, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1554

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 22, 1993

Docket91CV 3250CC; CA A74845

StatusPublished

This text of 859 P.2d 1177 (Banks v. Wells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banks v. Wells, 859 P.2d 1177, 123 Or. App. 356, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1554 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered after the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs raise four assignments of error. We address only one because it is dispositive.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and other pretrial motions. Plaintiffs responded and, in the caption and body of their response, requested oral argument. The court declined to permit oral argument and granted all of defendants’ motions. Plaintiffs assign error to the denial of their request for oral argument.

UTCR 5.050(1) provides, in part:

‘ ‘There shall be oral argument if requested by the moving party in the caption of the motion or by a responding party in the caption of a response.”

In Coleman and Coleman, 117 Or App 333, 335, 844 P2d 234 (1992), we said: “UTCR 5.050 is * * * mandatory: There shall be oral argument if it is requested.” (Emphasis in original.) The court’s refusal to allow oral argument was reversible error. State ex rel Frohnmayer v. Bicar, Inc., 119 Or App 458, 461, 850 P2d 1163 (1993).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI