Lieuallen v. Umatilla County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Lieuallen v. Umatilla County

645 P.2d 1074, 57 Or. App. 563

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 2, 1982

DocketNo. 11,621, CA A21955

StatusPublished

This text of 645 P.2d 1074 (Lieuallen v. Umatilla County) 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

Lieuallen v. Umatilla County, 645 P.2d 1074, 57 Or. App. 563 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is an action for negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and violation of civil rights. At one point in the proceedings, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of several defendants, including respondents Giger, Morgan arid Knudson. The court then entered judgment as to those three, finding “no just reason for delay.” ORS 18.125(1). Plaintiff appeals, asserting that, in the context of the facts of this case, the trial court erred in granting these judgments while judgment in favor of other, similarly-situated defendants were withheld, thereby creating a necessity for piecemeal appeal.

Assuming (without deciding) that the trial court’s grant of judgment to these three defendants was error, we nonetheless decline to reverse. Plaintiff has not, in his brief, made any showing that the trial judge’s underlying ruling granting a directed verdict to these three defendants was wrong on the merits. Without such a colorable showing, we find no prejudice in any error the trial court may have committed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

This is an action for negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and violation of civil rights. At one point in the proceedings, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of several defendants, including respondents Giger, Morgan arid Knudson. The court then entered judgment as to those three, finding “no just reason for delay.” ORS 18.125(1). Plaintiff appeals, asserting that, in the context of the facts of this case, the trial court erred in granting these judgments while judgment in favor of other, similarly-situated defendants were withheld, thereby creating a necessity for piecemeal appeal.

Assuming (without deciding) that the trial court’s grant of judgment to these three defendants was error, we nonetheless decline to reverse. Plaintiff has not, in his brief, made any showing that the trial judge’s underlying ruling granting a directed verdict to these three defendants was wrong on the merits. Without such a colorable showing, we find no prejudice in any error the trial court may have committed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 P.2d 1074, 57 Or. App. 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieuallen-v-umatilla-county-orctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack