Legal Opinion

Wayt v. Buerkel

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 13, 1994No. CV 91-06-34255; CA A78430PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

Pursuant to ORAP 6.25, defendant moves for reconsideration of our opinion, Wayt v. Buerkel, 128 Or App 222, 875 P2d 499 (1994), in which we held that there is a contract right to receive water that is appurtenant to property owned by plaintiff, but no easement for delivery of the water through defendant’s property to plaintiff’s property. Defendant requests that we delete footnote 6, 128 Or App at 233, from our opinion, because it contains a factual inaccuracy and is not necessary to the resolution of the case. We allow the motion and delete footnote 6.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wayt v. BuerkelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bloomfield v. WeaklandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  2. Pfaendler v. BruceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. Generaux v. DobynsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. F.N. Realty Services, Inc. v. Oregon Shores Recreational Club, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API