Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
Wolf v. Neill
Wolf v. Neill, 66 Or. App. 587 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1984-01-18
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM This case involves alleged lawyer malpractice. Defendants argued below that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief and, in the alternative, that their claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court concluded that the action was time barred and dismissed plaintiffs’ claim. Defendants renew both of their arguments on appeal. On the basis of our review of the record, we affirm on the ground that plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a valid claim for relief.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wolf v. Neill. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
This case involves alleged lawyer malpractice. Defendants argued below that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief and, in the alternative, that their claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court concluded that the action was time barred and dismissed plaintiffs’ claim. Defendants renew both of their arguments on appeal. On the basis of our review of the record, we affirm on the ground that plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a valid claim for relief. Accordingly, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue.
Affirmed.