Mears v. Marshall
This text of 921 P.2d 966 (Mears v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Janice M. MEARS, Petitioner on Review,
v.
William R. MARSHALL, M.D. and Collagen Corporation, Respondents on Review.
Supreme Court of Oregon.
Maureen Leonard and Kathryn J. Clarke, Portland, filed the petition for petitioner on review.
Eric J. Neiman, of Tooze Shenker Duden Creamer Frank & Hutchison, Portland, and Joe W. Redden, Jr., of Beck, Redden & Secrest, Houston, filed a response for respondent on review Collagen Corporation.
Before CARSON, C.J., and GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, FADELEY, GRABER and DURHAM, JJ.[**]
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996).
NOTES
[**] Unis, J., retired June 30, 1996, and did not participate in this decision.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
921 P.2d 966, 324 Or. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mears-v-marshall-or-1996.