Jerstad v. Warren

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Jerstad v. Warren

673 P.2d 565, 66 Or. App. 299, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4198

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 21, 1983

Docket79-7-124; CA A25722

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 673 P.2d 565 (Jerstad v. Warren) 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

Jerstad v. Warren, 673 P.2d 565, 66 Or. App. 299, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4198 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Jerstad, president of LJA, Inc., brought an action for indemnity against defendants Warren to recover on a promissory note that he had co-signed at the Warrens’ request. The Warrens fded a counterclaim, alleging that Jerstad owed them money based on promises he made concerning Mr. Warren’s continued employment.

At trial, the court allowed the pleadings to be amended to add LJA, Inc., both as a plaintiff and as a defendant on the counterclaim. Subsequently, Jerstad was dismissed as plaintiff but he continued as a defendant on the counterclaim. Judgment was entered for LJA, Inc. against the Warrens on the note and for the Warrens against Jerstad personally on the counterclaim. No final disposition as to LJA, Inc., on the counterclaim appears in the trial court file.

The Warrens appealed, and Jerstad cross-appealed. Both appeals must be dismissed, because this court lacks jurisdiction. ORS 19.010(2)(e) and ORCP 67B. The status of this action as reflected by the record is that an action is still pending against LJA, Inc., on the counterclaim. Because the trial court did not determine all claims as to all parties or expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment .as to fewer than all parties, the judgment is not final. See State Farm v. Sommerholder, 59 Or App 697, 652 P2d 2 (1982).

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM

Jerstad, president of LJA, Inc., brought an action for indemnity against defendants Warren to recover on a promissory note that he had co-signed at the Warrens’ request. The Warrens fded a counterclaim, alleging that Jerstad owed them money based on promises he made concerning Mr. Warren’s continued employment.

At trial, the court allowed the pleadings to be amended to add LJA, Inc., both as a plaintiff and as a defendant on the counterclaim. Subsequently, Jerstad was dismissed as plaintiff but he continued as a defendant on the counterclaim. Judgment was entered for LJA, Inc. against the Warrens on the note and for the Warrens against Jerstad personally on the counterclaim. No final disposition as to LJA, Inc., on the counterclaim appears in the trial court file.

The Warrens appealed, and Jerstad cross-appealed. Both appeals must be dismissed, because this court lacks jurisdiction. ORS 19.010(2)(e) and ORCP 67B. The status of this action as reflected by the record is that an action is still pending against LJA, Inc., on the counterclaim. Because the trial court did not determine all claims as to all parties or expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment .as to fewer than all parties, the judgment is not final. See State Farm v. Sommerholder, 59 Or App 697, 652 P2d 2 (1982).

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 P.2d 565, 66 Or. App. 299, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerstad-v-warren-orctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack