Summary
explaining that, in general, we construe provisions of the ORCP through the same methodology that we employ to construe statutes, in that we look first to the text and context of the rule
Summary of this case from Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Ctr.Opinion
(CC 9405-03390; CA A91012; SC S44770)
Filed: February 8, 2001
On respondent on review's petition for reconsideration filed August 9, 2000.
330 Or. 376, 8 P.3d 200 (2000); on review from the Court of Appeals, 149 Or. App. 464, 944 P.2d 957 (1997).
Catherine M. Masters, Chicago, Illinois, filed the petition for reconsideration for respondent on review. With her on the petition were Robert H. Riley, Neil Lloyd, and Schiff Hardin Waite, in association with Stephen S. Walters, of Stoel Rives, Portland.
Kathryn H. Clarke, Portland, filed the response for petitioner on review. With her on the response were Maureen Leonard and D. Lawrence Wobbrock, Portland.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. This court's former opinion is adhered to. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider those assignments of error not considered previously by that court.