Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp.
Oregon Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Respondent on review United Technologies Corporation petitions only for reconsideration of our disposition in this case, Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Tech. Corp., 303 Or 281, 735 P2d 614 (1987), arguing that, rather than reversing the Court of Appeals and affirming the trial court outright, our disposition should have been a remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of five assignments of error argued in that court by United Technologies but not considered. This argument is correct. See, e.g., Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O’Leary, 303 Or 297, 736 P2d 173 (1987).
Petition for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'LearyOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kambury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Border v. Indian Head Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- Sealey v. HicksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,007 William L. Baxter, Ppa Andrew T. Baxter, Third-Party-Defendant v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., Third-Party-PlaintiffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994