Case Name: Hamid MADANI, Appellant, v. KENDALL FORD, INC., and Dan David, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-07-18
Citations: 102 Or. App. 478
Docket Number: 16-87-02515; CA A49072
Parties: Hamid MADANI, Appellant, v. KENDALL FORD, INC., and Dan David, Respondents.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 102
Pages: 478–489

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 10, 1989,
reversed and remanded on claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract; otherwise affirmed July 18,
Madani’s reconsideration and Kendall’s reconsideration denied September 5, both petitions for review allowed October 23, 1990 (310 Or 475)
Hamid MADANI, Appellant, v. KENDALL FORD, INC., and Dan David, Respondents.
(16-87-02515; CA A49072)
794 P2d 1250
Robert E. Franz, Jr., Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Jack A. Gardner, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Jeffrey E. Potter and Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer & Schons, Eugene.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
DEITS, J.
Newman, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part.
Richardson, P. J., concurring in part; dissenting in part.

Opinion:
DEITS, J.
Plaintiff appeals a judgment for defendants in his action for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract. He assigns as errors the court's dismissal of his claims for wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to state claims, ORCP 21A(8), and its granting of a directed verdict for Kendall Ford on his claim for breach of contract. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
The facts are set out in Judge Newman's concurring and dissenting opinion. We reverse and remand the dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and the directed verdict on the breach of contract claim for the reasons set out in that opinion.
For the reasons stated in Judge Richardson's concurrence, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff s wrongful discharge claim.
Reversed and remanded on claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract; otherwise affirmed.
The court also granted a motion to dismiss plaintiffs breach of contract claim against defendant David. Plaintiff does not assign error to that ruling.