Slagle v. Hubbard

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Slagle v. Hubbard

37 P.3d 256, 178 Or. App. 632, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 9, 2002

Docket97-2136; A106008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 P.3d 256 (Slagle v. Hubbard) 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

Slagle v. Hubbard, 37 P.3d 256, 178 Or. App. 632, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendants Jeffrey Painter, Marion H. Painter, and Blake Charles Painter petition for reconsideration of a portion of our opinion, Slagle v. Hubbard, 176 Or App 1, 7 n 2, 29 P3d 1195 (2001), in which we held that they failed to properly cross-assign error to the trial court’s failure to exclude certain evidence in ruling on their summary judgment motion. According to defendants, they were not required to cross-assign error, and, in any event, they adequately raised the matter in their briefs. We need not address defendants’ contentions. As we stated in our opinion, even without considering that evidence, the summary judgment record contains other, uncontroverted evidence that is sufficient to defeat defendants’ motion. Id. at 7-8.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendants Jeffrey Painter, Marion H. Painter, and Blake Charles Painter petition for reconsideration of a portion of our opinion, Slagle v. Hubbard, 176 Or App 1, 7 n 2, 29 P3d 1195 (2001), in which we held that they failed to properly cross-assign error to the trial court’s failure to exclude certain evidence in ruling on their summary judgment motion. According to defendants, they were not required to cross-assign error, and, in any event, they adequately raised the matter in their briefs. We need not address defendants’ contentions. As we stated in our opinion, even without considering that evidence, the summary judgment record contains other, uncontroverted evidence that is sufficient to defeat defendants’ motion. Id. at 7-8.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 P.3d 256, 178 Or. App. 632, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slagle-v-hubbard-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack