State v. Wright

7 P.3d 738, 169 Or. App. 78, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1142

Opinion

HASELTON, J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration, challenging our opinion, State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 999 P2d 1220 (2000), in many respects. We allow the petition to correct one statement in our opinion and reject defendant’s other challenges without discussion.

Our opinion states:

“Defendant responds that ‘sufficiency’ under subsection (4) and ‘definiteness and certainty’ under subsection (2) and ORS 132.550(7) are distinct concepts and distinct requirements generally analogous in the civil context to the bases for a motion to dismiss for ‘failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim,’ ORCP 21 A(8), and a motion to make more definite and certain under ORCP 21 D.” 167 Or App at 303-04 (original emphasis bold; emphasis added).

Defendant contends that he never analogized a demurrer for lack of specificity to an ORCP 21 motion. That is correct. The italicized language, while generally intended to illustrate the distinction defendant posited, is not properly ascribed to defendant. Accordingly, the opinion is modified so that the balance of the sentence following “requirements” is deleted.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion modified and adhered to as modified.