Legal Opinion

Austin v. Danford

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 25, 1983No. 80-1087-L; CA A23441Published

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, J.

In their petition for reconsideration, tenants contend that in our former opinion, 62 Or App 242, 660 P2d 698 (1983), we erred: (1) in stating that tenants argued only that the water supply for the dwelling was undrinkable but was suitable for bathing and washing clothes; (2) in holding that landlords were not grossly negligent in failing to provide an essential service under ORS 91.805; (3) in holding that landlords did not engage in retaliatory conduct under ORS 91.865; and (4) in holding that landlords did not maintain the dwelling in an unhabitable condition under ORS 91.770. We withdraw…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kashmir Corp. v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Kashmir Corp. v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  3. Austin v. DanfordCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API