Case ID: or_332/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On petition for review filed May 18, 1999,
    
    petition for review allowed; decision of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to Court of Appeals for further consideration April 19, 2001
    See 178 Or App 42 (2001)
    Paul R. BOCCI, Jr., guardian ad litem for Paul R. Bocci, III, an incapacitated individual, Plaintiff, v. KEY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a foreign corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, a foreign corporation, and Schering Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendants, and MILES, INC., an Indiana corporation, Miles, Inc., Pharmaceutical Division, an Indiana corporation, Legacy Health System, an Oregon corporation, Legacy Immediate Care Clinic, Frederick D. Edwards, M.D., and The Eugene Clinic, a partnership, Defendants. Frederick D. EDWARDS, M.D., Respondent on Review, v. KEY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a foreign corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, a foreign corporation, and Schering Corporation, a foreign corporation, Petitioners on Review.
    
    
      (CC [ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A86556; SC S46461)
    22 P3d 758
    William F. Gary, Stanton F. Long, Sharon A. Rudnick, James E. Mountain, Jr., and Judith Giers, of Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C, Eugene, filed the petition for petitioners on review.
    Margaret A. Sundberg and Mary H. Spillane, of Williams, Kastner & Gobbs PLLC, Seattle, Washington, filed the response for respondent on review. With them on the response were Daniel M. Holland and Ronald B. Terzenbach, of Loomis & Holland, Eugene.
    Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Kulongoski, Leeson, and De Muniz, Justices.
    
    
      
       Appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court, William C. Snouffer, Judge. 158 Or App 521, 974 P2d 758 (1999).
    
    
      
       Riggs, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
    
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 331 Or 537, 17 P3d 473 (2001).