Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
JRD Development Joint Venture v. Catlin
JRD Dev. Joint Venture v. Catlin, 118 Or. App. 502 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1993-03-10
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- “An Oregon trial court has inherent authority to set aside a judgment procured by fraud!.]”
- “Examples of extrinsic fraud include keeping a party in ignorance of an action, false offers of compromise, an attorney’s betrayal of the client’s interest to an adversary and other acts of a similar nature.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed JRD Development Joint Venture v. Catlin. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 9 opinions
Plaintiffs seek review of our opinion in which we reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment for defendants. 116 Or App 182, 840 P2d 737 (1992). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15(1), allow it, and clarify a portion of our opinion.
Among other things, plaintiffs argue that our opinion did not consider certain assignments of error raised by the parties. Despite language that could be understood to indicate that we did not “reach” those issues, 116 Or App at 185, we did consider them and concluded that they did not merit discussion.
Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.