Opinion
90D-300490; CA A70518
On appellant Frogge's petition for reconsideration filed August 11, reconsideration allowed; opinion ( 120 Or. App. 619, 853 P.2d 1323) adhered to November 17, 1993, reconsideration denied April 6, petition for review denied April 26, 1994 ( 319 Or. 36)
Appeal from District Court, Marion County, Paul J. Lipscomb, Judge.
Magar E. Magar, Portland, for petition.
Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Leeson, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.
Plaintiff asks us to reconsider our opinion, 120 Or. App. 619, 853 P.2d 1323 (1993), affirming a judgment against her on the ground that she did not present sufficient evidence of her damages. She argues for the first time that defendant's appellate brief misquoted her expert, and that her expert's testimony, properly quoted, establishes her damages.
The trial court granted a directed verdict for defendant in part on the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish her damages. On appeal, plaintiff failed to show that that ruling was error. Reconsideration is not a forum for making arguments previously neglected. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 823 P.2d 956 (1991); Beck v. Fred S. James Co., 53 Or. App. 179, 631 P.2d 798 (1981).
Reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.