Legal Opinion

Leitz v. Thorson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 24, 1992No. 90-CV-0027-MS; CA A68007PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*559EDMONDS, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment for breach of contract and fraud. He argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict on plaintiffs’ contract claim.1 ORCP 60. We affirm.

Plaintiffs leased commercial space from defendant to open a florist shop. After the lease was executed, plaintiffs learned that they could not place another freestanding sign along the highway to advertise the business, because the Deschutes County Code allows only one freestanding sign on the property. A freestanding sign advertising a business owned in part by defendant was already…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hatley v. StaffordOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. CALDWELL ET UX v. WellsOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  4. Siegner v. Interstate Production Credit Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  5. Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wescold, Inc. v. Logan International, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  2. Leitz v. ThorsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API