Metz Supply, Inc. v. Allen Care Centers, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Metz Supply, Inc. v. Allen Care Centers, Inc.

623 P.2d 1141, 50 Or. App. 653, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2383

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 23, 1981

DocketNo. 196404, CA 18672

StatusPublished

This text of 623 P.2d 1141 (Metz Supply, Inc. v. Allen Care Centers, 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

Metz Supply, Inc. v. Allen Care Centers, Inc., 623 P.2d 1141, 50 Or. App. 653, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2383 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

We conclude that plaintiff and defendant entered into a settlement agreement of a prior lawsuit commenced by plaintiff in the circuit court and that the settlement agreement was fully performed, resulting in the dismissal of the circuit court lawsuit. We conclude further that in the event the settlement agreement was not fully performed by defendant, plaintiff has failed to prove its damages with reasonable certainty. Based upon those conclusions, plaintiff was not entitled to recover on its complaint and defendant was not entitled to prevail on its counterclaim.

Accordingly, the judgment for defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s complaint and judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim.

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

PER CURIAM

We conclude that plaintiff and defendant entered into a settlement agreement of a prior lawsuit commenced by plaintiff in the circuit court and that the settlement agreement was fully performed, resulting in the dismissal of the circuit court lawsuit. We conclude further that in the event the settlement agreement was not fully performed by defendant, plaintiff has failed to prove its damages with reasonable certainty. Based upon those conclusions, plaintiff was not entitled to recover on its complaint and defendant was not entitled to prevail on its counterclaim.

Accordingly, the judgment for defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s complaint and judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 P.2d 1141, 50 Or. App. 653, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metz-supply-inc-v-allen-care-centers-inc-orctapp-1981.