Brooks v. Dierker
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtLee, J.
Defendants petition for reconsideration of our previous decision, contending that we erred in several particulars. "We have undertaken reconsideration of the case pursuant to Bule 9.15, Buies of Procedure of this court.
First, defendants challenge the conclusion in the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to have his rights determined pursuant to the 1970 ordinance, rather than the 1972 ordinance. Defendants criticize our reliance upon Morgan v. Morgan, 13 Or App 14, 507 *699P2d 409, Sup Ct review denied (1973), for this conclusion.
After reviewing this question in the light of defendants’ arguments…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Joseph v. LoweryOregon Supreme Court · 1972
- Smith v. Clackamas CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1969
- Kirn v. NoyesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Schmitt Et Ux v. CulhaneOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- Morgan v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brooks v. DierkerOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Ken Leahy Construction, Inc. v. Cascade General, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Ken Leahy Construction, Inc. v. Cascade General, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1997