Campbell v. Roseburg Lumber Co.

593 P.2d 1201, 39 Or. App. 671, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2182
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 23, 1979
DocketNo. 391-233, CA 11542
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 593 P.2d 1201 (Campbell v. Roseburg Lumber Co.) 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
Campbell v. Roseburg Lumber Co., 593 P.2d 1201, 39 Or. App. 671, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2182 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

TANZER, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages for wrongful interference with his contract of employment and appeals from a summary judgment for defendants.

Plaintiff was a minority stockholder and long-term employee of a corporate subsidiary of the defendant corporation. Other defendants are owners and officers of the defendant corporation. There is no direct evidence that defendants participated in plaintiff’s termination. The issue on summary judgment is whether the circumstances shown by plaintiff’s evidence are sufficient to allow an inference that his termination was the result of defendants’ wrongful acts.

The factual record is so extensive that it would not be useful to general readers to set it out. Summarizing, plaintiff has proffered proof of these circumstances:

- Plaintiff, as a minority stockholder of his employer made demands for information which might be regarded by defendants, if known to them, as troublemaking. The termination occurred shortly thereafter.
- Plaintiff, a long-term employee, was terminated on short notice. The reason given was a reduction in work force due to termination of a project on which plaintiff was principal engineer. In fact, the project continued at a reduced activity level.

The trial court concluded in essence that plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a suspicion but insufficient to support an inference. We concur. Defendants also assert the defense of res judicata. Because of our resolution of the factual issue, we need not consider this defense.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Campbell v. Roseburg Lumber Co.
603 P.2d 1179 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
593 P.2d 1201, 39 Or. App. 671, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-roseburg-lumber-co-orctapp-1979.