Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc.
88 P.3d 305, 193 Or. App. 59
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided April 14, 2004·No. 0104-03797; A117930·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
Plaintiff and defendant both petition for reconsideration of our decision in Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 192 Or App 261, 84 P3d 1105 (2004). We deny defendant’s petition without further discussion. We grant plaintiffs petition and modify footnote one to read as follows:
“The summary judgment record does not establish that there is a factual issue about whether plaintiff had a substantial limitation on her ability to sleep or whether defendant perceived plaintiff as having such a limitation. We therefore reject plaintiffs assertions that she was a qualified individual with a disability or was regarded to be such an individual because of an actual or perceived limitation on her ability to sleep.”
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 88 P.3d 305, 193 Or. App. 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
88 P.3d 305 (Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Zachary Alsedek v. Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions, Inc.
D. Oregon, 2025
Larry R. Hedlund v. State of Iowa
930 N.W.2d 707 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2019)
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc.
218 P.3d 542 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)
Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.
104 P.3d 609 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2005)
Williams v. FREIGHTLINER, LLC
100 P.3d 1117 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2004)
Clark v. DSU PETERBILT & GMC, INC.
87 P.3d 1159 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2004)