Legal Opinion

Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 12, 1986No. A8205-03304 & A8207-04628 CA A37355 [control] & CA A37356PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarden, P. J.

Appellants, independent newspaper dealers, brought this action for breach of contract, reformation and fraud, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants 1 on all of the claims, on the basis that the parol evidence rule barred the admission of evidence of oral promises and representations made by defendant. Appellants assign error to the granting of summary judgment on 11 of their 12 claims. We reverse and remand as to the claims for breach of contract, fraud and injunctive relief, and we affirm as to the claims for reformation.

Appellants…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hatley v. StaffordOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Bramwell v. RowlandOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Green v. Uncle Don's Mobile CityOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Themins v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity BoardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  5. Allen v. AllenOregon Supreme Court · 1976

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. Siegner v. Interstate Production Credit Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. State Ex Rel. Cipriano v. Triad Mechanical, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  4. Bennett v. Farmers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  5. O'MEARA v. PritchettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API