Case ID: or-app_129/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      De MUNIZ, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On appellant’s motion for reconsideration filed May 27,
    reconsideration allowed; opinion (128 Or App 222, 875 P2d 499) modified and adhered to as modified July 13, 1994
    Robert S. WAYT, Respondent, v. Donald G. BUERKEL, Appellant, and POWDER VALLEY WATER CONTROL DISTRICT, Respondent.
    
    (CV 91-06-34255; CA A78430)
    876 P2d 868
    W. Eugene Hallman for motion.
    No appearance contra.
    
    Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
    De MUNIZ, J.
   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.