Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

MEARS v. MARSHALL, 324 Or. 130 (1996)

921 P.2d 966

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1996-08-29
Topic
general

MEARS v. MARSHALL, 324 Or. 130 (1996) 921 P.2d 966 Janice M. MEARS, Petitioner on Review, v. William R. MARSHALL, M.D. andCollagen Corporation, Respondents on Review.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MEARS v. MARSHALL, 324 Or. 130 (1996). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MEARS v. MARSHALL,324 Or. 130(1996)
921 P.2d 966
Janice M. MEARS,Petitioner on Review,v. William R. MARSHALL, M.D. and
Collagen Corporation,Respondents on Review.
CC 9307-04839; CA A85078; SC S43073
Oregon Supreme Court.
On petition for review filed February 23, 1996
Petition for review allowed;
Decision of the Court of Appeals vacated
Case remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration August 29, 1996
On review from the Court of Appeals.fn*
Maureen Leonard and Kathryn J. Clarke, Portland, filed the petition for petitioner on review.

Eric J. Neiman, of Tooze Shenker Duden Creamer Frank Hutchison, Portland, and Joe W. Redden, Jr., of Beck, Redden Secrest, Houston, filed a response for respondent on review Collagen Corporation.
Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Graber, and Durham, Justices.fn**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court inMedtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 US ___,116 S Ct 2240,135 L Ed 2d 700(1996).Page 131
  1. Appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court, George M. Joseph, Senior Judge.137 Or. App. 390,905 P.2d 1154,on recons138 Or. App. 476,908 P.2d 212(1996). ↩
  2. Unis, J., retired June 30, 1996, and did not participate in this decision. ↩