Case ID: or-app_178/html/0632-01.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 respondents’ petition for reconsideration filed November 21, 2001,
    petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion (176 Or App 1, 29 P3d 1195 (2001)) adhered to January 9, 2002
    Charlotte T. SLAGLE, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Richard Edwin Slagle, deceased, Appellant, v. David HUBBARD and Lori L. Hubbard, individually, and David Hubbard, as personal representative of Erik R. Hubbard, deceased, Defendants, and Jeffrey PAINTER, Marion H. Painter and Blake Charles Painter, a minor, Respondents.
    
    97-2136; A106008
    37 P3d 256
    Thomas W. Brown, Wendy M. Margolis, and Cosgrave, Vergeer & Kester LLP, for petition.
    Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Brewer, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendants Jeffrey Painter, Marion H. Painter, and Blake Charles Painter petition for reconsideration of a portion of our opinion, Slagle v. Hubbard, 176 Or App 1, 7 n 2, 29 P3d 1195 (2001), in which we held that they failed to properly cross-assign error to the trial court’s failure to exclude certain evidence in ruling on their summary judgment motion. According to defendants, they were not required to cross-assign error, and, in any event, they adequately raised the matter in their briefs. We need not address defendants’ contentions. As we stated in our opinion, even without considering that evidence, the summary judgment record contains other, uncontroverted evidence that is sufficient to defeat defendants’ motion. Id. at 7-8.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.