Legal Opinion
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided October 11, 2006No. 0211-11819; A131606PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.
Plaintiffs seek interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying their motion for class certification in this tobacco products litigation brought under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). We write to address the operation of the class action interlocutory appeal statute, ORS 19.225, which provides:
“When a circuit court judge, in making in a class action under ORCP 32 an order not otherwise appealable, is of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. RogersOregon Supreme Court · 2000
- David M. Scott Construction Corp. v. FarrellOregon Supreme Court · 1979
- Lulay v. EarleOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Ratner v. Chemical Bank New York Trust CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Adams v. Corrections Corp. of AmericaColorado Court of Appeals · 2011
- Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Assn.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
- James v. PacifiCorpCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
- Adams v. Corrections Corp. of AmericaColorado Court of Appeals · 2011