History
  • No items yet
midpage
Averill v. Red Lion
120 Or. App. 232
Or. Ct. App.
1993
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM

Plaintiff requests clarification of our opinion. 118 Or App 298, 846 P2d 1203 (1993). In that opinion, we reversed and remanded “for entry of judgment on the verdict” in plaintiffs favor. Plaintiff points out that a judgment on the verdict in her favor already was entered on May 4,1990. That judgment was superseded by the judgment n.o.v., entered June 20, 1990, which we ordered must be set aside. Rather than enter a new judgment in plaintiffs favor, she argues, we should order the trial court to set aside its June 20, 1990, judgment and to reinstate the original May 4, 1990, judgment.

Plaintiff is correct. Pearson v. Schmitt, 260 Or 607, 609, 492 P2d 269 (1971); Brewer v. Erwin, 70 Or App 709, 714, 690 P2d 1122 (1984), mod 75 Or App 132, 705 P2d 242 (1985).

Motion for clarification granted. Opinion clarified by directing trial court to vacate judgment n.o.v. entered June 20, 1990, and to reinstate judgment in plaintiffs favor entered May 4, 1990.

Case Details

Case Name: Averill v. Red Lion
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date Published: May 12, 1993
Citation: 120 Or. App. 232
Docket Number: A8812-06591; CA A65842
Court Abbreviation: Or. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.