Case ID: or-app_107/html/0766-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM WARREN, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted January 25, 1989;
    opinion issued In Banc February 14, 1990, 100 Or App 392, 786 P2d 1269;
    opinion modified on reconsideration October 17, 1990, 104 Or App 39, 798 P2d 1111;
    review granted and decision vacated February 6, 311 Or 151, 806 P2d 129;
    amended notice of appeal filed May 29, resubmitted In Banc June 11,
    reversed and remanded June 19, 1991
    Glenn H. SCOTT and Esther Scott, Plaintiffs, v. Peter D. FRANCIS; Patrick H. LePley; Jack J. Ackerman; Francis, Lopez & Lepley; and Francis, Lopez & Ackerman, Defendants, Carl A. Taylor LOPEZ, Defendant - Respondent, and Jay R. JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant.
    
    ([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A46646; SC S37071)
    811 P2d 927
    Patrick N. Rothwell, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Hallmark, Keating & Abbott, P.C., Portland.
    John Folawn, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Martin W. Jaqua and Holmes & Folawn, Portland.
    PER CURIAM
    Warren, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part.
   PER CURIAM

The Supreme Court granted review in this case and vacated our decisions, 311 Or 151,806 P2d 129 (1991), after it was determined that there had been no final, appealable judgment entered in the trial court. On remand, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we granted the trial court leave to enter an appealable judgment. ORS 19.033(4). The trial court entered the judgment, and appellant has filed an amended notice of appeal.

Our opinion, 100 Or App 392, 786 P2d 1269 (1990), as modified on reconsideration, 104 Or App 39, 798 P2d 1111 (1990), is adopted and republished as the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

WARREN, J.,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I dissented in part in our original opinion. For the reasons stated there, I concur and dissent in part here.

Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman and Deits, Judges, join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.