Case ID: or-app_66/html/0587-01.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

Argued and submitted December 16, 1983,
    affirmed January 18,
    reconsideration denied March 9,
    petition for review denied March 27, 1984 (296 Or 712)
    WOLF et al, Appellants, v. NEILL et al, Respondents.
    
    ([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A27991)
    674 P2d 1192
    Michael H. Bloom, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Bloom, Marandas & Sly, Portland.
    William L. Larkins, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Black, Tremaine, Higgins, Lankton & Krieger, Portland.
    Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

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.