Opinion · Oregon Supreme Court
Spiess v. Johnson
Spiess v. Johnson, 307 Or. 242 (Or. 1988)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Oregon Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1988-12-20
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- because the plaintiff did not have a doctor-patient relationship with the defendant psychiatrist, the plaintiff did not have a claim for negligence based on the psychiatrist’s counseling and treatment of his wife
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Spiess v. Johnson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
765 P.2d 811 (1988) 307 Or. 242
Lowell SPIESS, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent On Review,
TC 86254; CA A41991; SC S34965, S34975.
Lowell SPIESS, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent On Review,
v.
Richard H. JOHNSON, M.D., and Richard H. Johnson, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner On Review,
Terrell Templeman, Bruce S. Barnes, Dba Pendleton Professional Services, Respondents On Review, and
Alta M. Case, Defendant (below).
TC 86254; CA A41991; SC S34965, S34975.
Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc[*].
Argued and Submitted June 8, 1988. Decided December 20, 1988.Theodore H. Heap, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner/cross-respondent on review.
*812 Thomas M. Christ, Mitchell, Lang & Smith, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for respondent/cross-petitioner on review Richard H. Johnson, M.D.
Don G. Swink, Portland, argued the cause for respondents on review Terrell Templeman and Bruce S. Barnes, d/b/a Pendleton Professional Services.
Affirmed by an equally divided court.
NOTES
[*] Lent, J., retired effective Sept. 30, 1988.