Case Name: Charlotte T. SLAGLE, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Richard Edwin Slagle, deceased, Appellant, v. David HUBBARD and Lori L. Hubbard, individually, and David Hubbard, as personal representative of Erik R. Hubbard, deceased, Defendants, and Jeffrey PAINTER, Marion H. Painter and Blake Charles Painter, a minor, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2002-01-09
Citations: 178 Or. App. 632
Docket Number: 97-2136; A106008
Parties: Charlotte T. SLAGLE, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Richard Edwin Slagle, deceased, Appellant, v. David HUBBARD and Lori L. Hubbard, individually, and David Hubbard, as personal representative of Erik R. Hubbard, deceased, Defendants, and Jeffrey PAINTER, Marion H. Painter and Blake Charles Painter, a minor, Respondents.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Brewer, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 178
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
On respondents’ petition for reconsideration filed November 21, 2001,
petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion (176 Or App 1, 29 P3d 1195 (2001)) adhered to January 9, 2002
Charlotte T. SLAGLE, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Richard Edwin Slagle, deceased, Appellant, v. David HUBBARD and Lori L. Hubbard, individually, and David Hubbard, as personal representative of Erik R. Hubbard, deceased, Defendants, and Jeffrey PAINTER, Marion H. Painter and Blake Charles Painter, a minor, Respondents.
97-2136; A106008
37 P3d 256
Thomas W. Brown, Wendy M. Margolis, and Cosgrave, Vergeer & Kester LLP, for petition.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Brewer, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendants Jeffrey Painter, Marion H. Painter, and Blake Charles Painter petition for reconsideration of a portion of our opinion, Slagle v. Hubbard, 176 Or App 1, 7 n 2, 29 P3d 1195 (2001), in which we held that they failed to properly cross-assign error to the trial court's failure to exclude certain evidence in ruling on their summary judgment motion. According to defendants, they were not required to cross-assign error, and, in any event, they adequately raised the matter in their briefs. We need not address defendants' contentions. As we stated in our opinion, even without considering that evidence, the summary judgment record contains other, uncontroverted evidence that is sufficient to defeat defendants' motion. Id. at 7-8.
Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.