Case Name: LIEUALLEN, Appellant, v. UMATILLA COUNTY et al, Defendants; KNUDSON et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1982-06-02
Citations: 57 Or. App. 563
Docket Number: No. 11,621, CA A21955
Parties: LIEUALLEN, Appellant, v. UMATILLA COUNTY et al, Defendants; KNUDSON et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 57
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 6,
affirmed June 2, 1982
LIEUALLEN, Appellant, v. UMATILLA COUNTY et al, Defendants; KNUDSON et al, Respondents.
(No. 11,621, CA A21955)
645 P2d 1074
Michael B. Collins, Pendleton, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Collins & Collins, Pendleton.
Robert A. Peterson, Albany, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This is an action for negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and violation of civil rights. At one point in the proceedings, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of several defendants, including respondents Giger, Morgan arid Knudson. The court then entered judgment as to those three, finding "no just reason for delay." ORS 18.125(1). Plaintiff appeals, asserting that, in the context of the facts of this case, the trial court erred in granting these judgments while judgment in favor of other, similarly-situated defendants were withheld, thereby creating a necessity for piecemeal appeal.
Assuming (without deciding) that the trial court's grant of judgment to these three defendants was error, we nonetheless decline to reverse. Plaintiff has not, in his brief, made any showing that the trial judge's underlying ruling granting a directed verdict to these three defendants was wrong on the merits. Without such a colorable showing, we find no prejudice in any error the trial court may have committed.
Affirmed.