Heathman v. Par-4, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Heathman v. Par-4, Inc.

684 P.2d 630, 69 Or. App. 252, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3875

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 18, 1984

DocketA28204-02099; CA A29499

StatusPublished

This text of 684 P.2d 630 (Heathman v. Par-4, Inc.) 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

Heathman v. Par-4, Inc., 684 P.2d 630, 69 Or. App. 252, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3875 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this action for declaratory relief, in which plaintiff sought a declaration of the rights of the parties under a contract, it is clear from the pleadings that the parties disagree on the meaning of the contract. At the close of plaintiffs case, defendant moved to dismiss the action under ORCP 54B(2). The denial of that motion is the only error assigned on appeal.

Even though we might disagree with the trial court’s interpretation of the contract, there was no error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this action for declaratory relief, in which plaintiff sought a declaration of the rights of the parties under a contract, it is clear from the pleadings that the parties disagree on the meaning of the contract. At the close of plaintiffs case, defendant moved to dismiss the action under ORCP 54B(2). The denial of that motion is the only error assigned on appeal.

Even though we might disagree with the trial court’s interpretation of the contract, there was no error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 P.2d 630, 69 Or. App. 252, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heathman-v-par-4-inc-orctapp-1984.