Peterson v. Temple

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Peterson v. Temple

927 P.2d 636, 144 Or. App. 591, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1718

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 20, 1996

Docket93-1490-E-1; CA A82008

StatusPublished

This text of 927 P.2d 636 (Peterson v. Temple) 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

Peterson v. Temple, 927 P.2d 636, 144 Or. App. 591, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1718 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In Peterson v. Temple, 130 Or App 337, 881 P2d 833 (1994), we held that plaintiff’s personal injury claim, which was based on the same set of facts as his earlier property damages claim, was barred. On review, the Supreme Court agreed that a plaintiff may not maintain separate actions against the same defendant, one alleging injury to property and the other alleging injury to person, when both actions arise from the same act or omission. Peterson v. Temple, 323 Or 322, 324, 918 P2d 413 (1996). Nonetheless, because plaintiff had reasonably relied on two prior Supreme Court decisions and one prior decision of this court in pursuing his separate actions, the court applied its holding prospectively and reversed and remanded that case to us. Id. We now reverse and remand to the trial court for trial on plaintiffs personal injury claim.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

In Peterson v. Temple, 130 Or App 337, 881 P2d 833 (1994), we held that plaintiff’s personal injury claim, which was based on the same set of facts as his earlier property damages claim, was barred. On review, the Supreme Court agreed that a plaintiff may not maintain separate actions against the same defendant, one alleging injury to property and the other alleging injury to person, when both actions arise from the same act or omission. Peterson v. Temple, 323 Or 322, 324, 918 P2d 413 (1996). Nonetheless, because plaintiff had reasonably relied on two prior Supreme Court decisions and one prior decision of this court in pursuing his separate actions, the court applied its holding prospectively and reversed and remanded that case to us. Id. We now reverse and remand to the trial court for trial on plaintiffs personal injury claim.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 P.2d 636, 144 Or. App. 591, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-temple-orctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack