Wolf v. Neill
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.
Opinion
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
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.