Case Name: WOLF et al, Appellants, v. NEILL et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1984-01-18
Citations: 66 Or. App. 587
Docket Number: A8206-03384; CA A27991
Parties: WOLF et al, Appellants, v. NEILL et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 66
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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.