From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WAYT v. BUERKEL

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 27, 1994
129 Or. App. 119 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

CV 91-06-34255; CA A78430

On appellant's motion for reconsideration filed May 27, 1994 Reconsideration allowed; opinion ( 128 Or. App. 222, 875 P.2d 499) modified and adhered to as modified July 13, 1994

Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County. Eric W. Valentine, Judge.

W. Eugene Hallman for motion.

No appearance contra.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.


De MUNIZ, J.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.


Pursuant to ORAP 6.25, defendant moves for reconsideration of our opinion, Wayt v. Buerkel, 128 Or. App. 222, 875 P.2d 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 modified and adhered to as modified.


Summaries of

WAYT v. BUERKEL

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 27, 1994
129 Or. App. 119 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

WAYT v. BUERKEL

Case Details

Full title:Robert S. WAYT, Respondent, v. Donald G. BUERKEL, Appellant, and POWDER…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 27, 1994

Citations

129 Or. App. 119 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)
876 P.2d 868

Citing Cases

Pfaendler v. Bruce

(Footnote omitted.)See, e.g., Corey v. United Savings Bank, 52 Or App 263, 272, 628 P2d 739, rev den, 291 Or…

F.N. Realty v. Oregon Shores Recreational Club

We review the court's interpretation of the CCRs as a question of law. Cf. C B Livestock v. Johns, 273 Or. 6,…