Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp.

736 P.2d 1023, 303 Or. 452, 1987 Ore. LEXIS 1393
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided May 27, 1987·No. TC A8305-03355; CA A34839; SC S33021·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Respondent on review United Technologies Corporation petitions only for reconsideration of our disposition in this case, Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Tech. Corp., 303 Or 281, 735 P2d 614 (1987), arguing that, rather than reversing the Court of Appeals and affirming the trial court outright, our disposition should have been a remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of five assignments of error argued in that court by United Technologies but not considered. This argument is correct. See, e.g., Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O’Leary, 303 Or 297, 736 P2d 173 (1987).

Petition for reconsideration granted. The disposition of our former opinion is amended to read:

“The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.”

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

Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp., 736 P.2d 1023, 303 Or. 452, 1987 Ore. LEXIS 1393 (Or. 1987).

736 P.2d 1023 (Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kambury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
60 P.3d 1103 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2003)
Border v. Indian Head Industries, Inc.
792 P.2d 111 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1990)
Sealey v. Hicks
768 P.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)
Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp.
743 P.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1987)