Case Name: Don MARCOULIER, Appellant, v. Jerry UMSTED, Respondent; Jerry UMSTED, Third-Party Plaintiff - Respondent, v. Don MARCOULIER and Felix Marcoulier, Third-Party Defendants - Appellants, and Harvey STEEN, Third-Party Defendant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-09-26
Citations: 103 Or. App. 482
Docket Number: 37726; CA A48775
Parties: Don MARCOULIER, Appellant, v. Jerry UMSTED, Respondent. Jerry UMSTED, Third-Party Plaintiff - Respondent, v. Don MARCOULIER and Felix Marcoulier, Third-Party Defendants - Appellants, and Harvey STEEN, Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 103
Pages: 482–483

Head Matter:
On appellants’ petition for reconsideration filed August 8 of opinion filed June 6 (102 Or App 61, 793 P2d 881),
petition for reconsideration denied September 26,
petition for review allowed by memorandum opinion November 8, 1990
See 310 Or 546, 800 P2d 299 (1990)
Don MARCOULIER, Appellant, v. Jerry UMSTED, Respondent. Jerry UMSTED, Third-Party Plaintiff - Respondent, v. Don MARCOULIER and Felix Marcoulier, Third-Party Defendants - Appellants, and Harvey STEEN, Third-Party Defendant.
(37726; CA A48775)
798 P2d 260
David Gernant, Portland, for petition.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Appellants have filed a petition for review, which we treat as a petition for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15. It is denied.
The petition contains a statement that one of the trial court judges committed errors because he "was distracted" by a personal concern unrelated to the case. The statement is not supported by any references to the record or to anything else. Appellants' briefs in this court, which do not contain the statement, also lack anything that would support the allegation in the petition.
In advocating that the Supreme Court grant review, the petition also refers to this court's supposed "evident anger and emotional antipathy toward these petitioners," to "its zeal to 'fix' " the petitioners, to its "biased tone" and to its "evident emotion and bias." Nothing appears in the opinion or petition to support that intemperateness or temerariousness. It would perhaps be appropriate for this court to strike the petition; however, given that the petition is directed primarily to the Supreme Court under the Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure, we probably lack the authority to do that. Nonetheless, counsel appears to require a warning that there are limits of reasonableness on the scope of advocacy and also to be reminded of at least one Disciplinary Rule, DR 8-102(B): "A lawyer shall not knowingly make false accusations against a judge or other adjudicatory officer."
Petition for reconsideration denied.