State ex rel. Roberts v. Public Finance Co.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentRossman, J.
I respectfully dissent, because the majority in effect approves the use of summary judgment as a proper way to resolve ambiguities in contracts. That is not a proper function of summary judgment.
The majority opinion slights the facts. To analyze this case properly, the following facts must be considered.
Hoglen had worked for defendant for just three days short of 19 years (November 24, 1961, through November 21, 1980), when another finance company took over 131 Pacific Finance offices, including Hoglen’s, at which time defendant terminated him. Before his termination, Hoglen had intended to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Seeborg v. General Motors CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Sabin v. Willamette-Western CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Rose City Transit Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- Thompson v. BurrOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Hanneman v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.