Purcell v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd.

963 P.2d 729, 155 Or. App. 1, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 1256
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJuly 15, 1998
Docket9311-07674; CA A85339
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 963 P.2d 729 (Purcell v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd.) 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
Purcell v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 963 P.2d 729, 155 Or. App. 1, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

*4 DEITS, C. J.

Defendant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (Owens) petitions for reconsideration of our opinion. Purcell v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 153 Or App 415, 959 P2d 59 (1998). Owens contends that our “decision overlooks and/or misperceives certain facts” and that our conclusions and holding consequently were affected. Assuming arguendo that all of the factual assertions in Owens’ petition are correct, neither our analysis nor our holding would be altered.

We nevertheless allow reconsideration to correct certain statements in our opinion that could have unintended consequences on matters beyond this case. In 1958, Owens purchased the division that produced the asbestos-containing material Kaylo from the Owens-Illinois Corporation. For purposes of the analysis in our opinion and for purposes of this case, that is the critical fact about the relationship between Owens and Owens-Illinois. Although our opinion correctly states that fact, it also contains statements to the effect that Owens-Illinois was a subsidiary of Owens and that, in 1958, Owens acquired Owens-Illinois, as distinct from purchasing only the latter’s Kaylo Division.

Owens argues that it is incorrect that there was ever a parent-subsidiary relationship between the two corporations or that Owens acquired Owens-Illinois in its entirety. Noting that the contrary indications in our opinion could have repercussions in other lawsuits, Owens asks us to withdraw our statements that there now is or ever was a relationship by which Owens controlled or owned Owens-Illinois.

Nothing in this case turns on the presence or absence of a structural relationship between the two entities, and our opinion was not intended to and does not decide anything about that matter. Any statements in our opinion that suggest otherwise were inadvertent.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

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

Related

State v. Craft
342 Or. App. 34 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2025)
Hoff v. Certainteed Corp.
503 P.3d 457 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021)
Mason v. BCK Corp.
426 P.3d 206 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2018)
State v. Holt
381 P.3d 897 (Wasco County Circuit Court, Oregon, 2016)
State v. McMullin
346 P.3d 611 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2015)
Griffin v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Product Liability Trust
246 P.3d 483 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)
Griffin v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORP. TRUST
246 P.3d 483 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)
Smith v. KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO., INC.
307 S.W.3d 829 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Buck v. ACandS, Inc.
154 P.3d 750 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2007)
Joshi v. Providence Health System of Oregon Corp.
108 P.3d 1195 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2005)
Panpat v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.
21 P.3d 97 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)
Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc.
37 S.W.3d 310 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)
Blikre v. ACandS, Inc.
1999 ND 96 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
963 P.2d 729, 155 Or. App. 1, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 1256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purcell-v-asbestos-corp-ltd-orctapp-1998.