Case Name: JRD DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENTURE, a general partnership comprised of three Colorado corporations; Harne & Associates, Inc.; Hinterreiter & Associates, Inc.; and JRD Development, Inc., as partners and individually; and David Hinterreiter, Respondents, v. John CATLIN and Christina Catlin, Appellants
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-03-10
Citations: 118 Or. App. 502
Docket Number: 91-3042; CA A72345
Parties: JRD DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENTURE, a general partnership comprised of three Colorado corporations; Harne & Associates, Inc.; Hinterreiter & Associates, Inc.; and JRD Development, Inc., as partners and individually; and David Hinterreiter, Respondents, v. John CATLIN and Christina Catlin, Appellants.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 118
Pages: 502–507

Head Matter:
Submitted on respondents’ petition for reconsideration filed December 9, 1992,
reconsideration allowed; opinion (116 Or App 182, 840 P2d 737 (1992)) modified and adhered to as modified March 10,
reconsideration denied April 28,
petition for review denied May 25, 1993 (316 Or 528)
JRD DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENTURE, a general partnership comprised of three Colorado corporations; Harne & Associates, Inc.; Hinterreiter & Associates, Inc.; and JRD Development, Inc., as partners and individually; and David Hinterreiter, Respondents, v. John CATLIN and Christina Catlin, Appellants.
(91-3042; CA A72345)
848 P2d 136
Barry L. Adamson, Lake Oswego, for petition.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
RIGGS, J.
Edmonds, J., concurring.

Opinion:
RIGGS, J.
Plaintiffs seek review of our opinion in which we reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment for defendants. 116 Or App 182, 840 P2d 737 (1992). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15(1), allow it, and clarify a portion of our opinion.
Among other things, plaintiffs argue that our opinion did not consider certain assignments of error raised by the parties. Despite language that could be understood to indicate that we did not "reach" those issues, 116 Or App at 185, we did consider them and concluded that they did not merit discussion.
Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.