Legal Opinion
Samuel v. Frohnmayer
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided February 25, 1987No. 137346; CA A37404PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.
On appellant’s motion for reconsideration of our opinion, 82 Or App 375, 728 P2d 97 (1986), we amend footnote 1, 82 Or App at 377, to read:
“We express no opinion with respect to plaintiffs contention that he is also entitled to indemnification for expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action.”
Motion for reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Samuel v. FrohnmayerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
3Cited by10 opinions
- Samuel v. FrohnmayerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
- McKinley v. Owyhee Project North Board of ControlCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Giese v. Bay Area Health DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Moxness v. City of NewportCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- Bridge v. CarverCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.