Wolf v. Neill

674 P.2d 1192, 66 Or. App. 587, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 2619
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 18, 1984
DocketA8206-03384; CA A27991
StatusPublished

This text of 674 P.2d 1192 (Wolf v. Neill) 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
Wolf v. Neill, 674 P.2d 1192, 66 Or. App. 587, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 2619 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This case involves alleged lawyer malpractice. Defendants argued below that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief and, in the alternative, that their claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court concluded that the action was time barred and dismissed plaintiffs’ claim. Defendants renew both of their arguments on appeal. On the basis of our review of the record, we affirm on the ground that plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a valid claim for relief. Accordingly, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
674 P.2d 1192, 66 Or. App. 587, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-neill-orctapp-1984.