Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Meade v. Cedarapids, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 12, 1999No. 97-35836Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Circuit Judge
Because this is entirely an issue of state law, the majority’s opinion is not controlling and Oregon courts need give it no deference at all. See, e.g., Wedgwood Homes, Inc. v. Lund, 58 Or.App. 240, 648 P.2d 393, 396 (1982) (rejecting federal court’s interpretation of state statute), aff'd, 294 Or. 493, 659 P.2d 377 (1983). Therefore, I would not publish this nonprecedential opinion.
I concur with the majority that summary judgment was proper as to plaintiffs’ emotional distress claims and that there are genuine issues of material fact with regard to the husband-plaintiffs’ misrepresentation…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Margolis v. RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Jones v. NunleyOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Miller v. McDonald's Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Mattson v. Commercial Credit Business Loans, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1986
- Wedgwood Homes, Inc. v. LundOregon Supreme Court · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.