Legal Opinion

Gemignani v. Pete

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 15, 2003No. 99-CV-0233-AB, 99-CV-0241-MS A114364 (Control), A114576PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*586LANDAU, P. J.

In these consolidated cases, defendant appeals two judgments awarding damages to plaintiffs for violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPÁ), ORS 646.605 to 646.656, and for breach of contract. He argues that the trial court should have granted his motions for directed verdicts as to both claims in both cases. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict as to a claim for violation of the UTPA in one case, but otherwise affirm.

We state the facts in the light most favorable to the party that obtained the verdict. Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brown v. J. C. Penney Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Woodbury v. CH2M Hill, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Salem Tent & Awning Co. v. SchmidtCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  5. Stirling-Wanner v. Pocket Novels, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Oregon Public Employees' Retirement Board v. Simat, Helliesen & EichnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  2. Paul v. Providence Health System-OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  3. Allstream Business US, LLC v. Carrier Network Solutions, LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2021
  4. Gemignani v. PeteCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  5. Reiger v. St. Charles Health System, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API