Samuel v. Frohnmayer
84 Or. App. 80, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 5561
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided February 25, 1987·No. 137346; CA A37404·Published·Cited by 10 cases
Opinion
On appellant’s motion for reconsideration of our opinion, 82 Or App 375, 728 P2d 97 (1986), we amend footnote 1, 82 Or App at 377, to read:
“We express no opinion with respect to plaintiffs contention that he is also entitled to indemnification for expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action.”
Motion for reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Samuel v. Frohnmayer, 84 Or. App. 80, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 5561 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
84 Or. App. 80 (Samuel v. Frohnmayer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Welker Ex Rel. Bradbury v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission
953 P.2d 403 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1998)
Bridge v. Carver
941 P.2d 1039 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1997)
McKinley v. Owyhee Project North Board of Control
798 P.2d 673 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1990)
McKinley v. OWYHEE PROJECT N. BD. OF CONTROL
798 P.2d 673 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1990)
Giese v. Bay Area Health District
790 P.2d 1198 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1990)
Samuel v. Frohnmayer
770 P.2d 914 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)
Moxness v. City of Newport
748 P.2d 1014 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)