Case ID: or-app_224/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On appellant’s motion for reconsideration filed July 8,
    motion to reconsider granted; opinion (220 Or App 671,188 P3d 359) modified and adhered to as modified November 19, 2008
    INTERSTATE ROOFING, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SPRINGVILLE CORPORATION, fka Springville Associates, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and M&T REAL ESTATE, INC., Defendant.
    
    Washington County Circuit Court
    C043118CV; A135686
    197 P3d 27
    James N. Westwood and Stoel Rives LLP, and Jeffrey M. Batchelor and Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, P.C., for petition.
    Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In Interstate Roofing, Inc. v. Springville Corp., 220 Or App 671, 188 P3d 359 (2008), we modified on reconsideration, but adhered to, our earlier opinion in Interstate Roofing, Inc. v. Springville Corp., 217 Or App 412, 177 P3d 1 (2008). Springville Corporation now petitions for reconsideration of the modified opinion, noting that a parenthetical statement in the opening paragraph could be seen as inconsistent with the actual outcome of the case as reflected in the last sentence of the opinion: “Springville’s negligence claim was not conclusively resolved until entry of the general judgment.” 220 Or App at 680-81. To clarify, we now modify our modified opinion by deleting the following at 220 Or App at 673:

“(we should have granted the motion in its entirety rather than granting it in part and denying it in part).”

Motion to reconsider granted; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.