Johnson v. Premo

Petitioner has petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion in Johnson v. Premo, 269 Or App 686, 346 P3d 578 (2015), positing that one footnoted statement “may not be factually correct.” Specifically, the sole object of the request for reconsideration is the following statement, which constitutes the entirety of footnote 13 of our original opinion:

“On appeal, petitioner does not raise any assignments of error pertaining to the breach of contract claim.”

269 Or App at 694 n 13. Petitioner points out that, in petitioner’s pro se supplemental brief, petitioner did, in fact, include conclusory…