Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control District
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLent, J.
Defendant has filed a petition for rehearing, to which plaintiff has, pursuant to our request, filed a response. The thrust of the petition for rehearing is that even if our decision that there was an indemnity agreement between the parties was correct, plaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict, as we held in our former opinion. NW Pac. Indem. v. Junction City Water Dist., 295 Or 553, 558, 668 P2d 1206, 1209 (1983).
A short review of the progress of this case is appropriate. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals from a judgment for defendant on a jury verdict. Plaintiff stated five…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Artman v. RayOregon Supreme Court · 1972
- Wiggins v. Barrett & Associates, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
3Cited by26 opinions
- Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
- Biomass One, L.P. v. S-P ConstructionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Hagan v. Gemstate Manufacturing, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1999
- Hoekstre v. Golden B. Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.