Wayt v. Buerkel

876 P.2d 868, 129 Or. App. 119, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1075
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided July 13, 1994·No. CV 91-06-34255; CA A78430·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

De MUNIZ, J.

Pursuant to ORAP 6.25, defendant moves for reconsideration of our opinion, Wayt v. Buerkel, 128 Or App 222, 875 P2d 499 (1994), in which we held that there is a contract right to receive water that is appurtenant to property owned by plaintiff, but no easement for delivery of the water through defendant’s property to plaintiff’s property. Defendant requests that we delete footnote 6, 128 Or App at 233, from our opinion, because it contains a factual inaccuracy and is not necessary to the resolution of the case. We allow the motion and delete footnote 6.

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

Wayt v. Buerkel, 876 P.2d 868, 129 Or. App. 119, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1075 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

876 P.2d 868 (Wayt v. Buerkel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Generaux v. Dobyns
134 P.3d 983 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2006)
Pfaendler v. Bruce
98 P.3d 1146 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2004)
Bloomfield v. Weakland
92 P.3d 749 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2004)
F.N. Realty Services, Inc. v. Oregon Shores Recreational Club, Inc.
891 P.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1995)