Warm Springs Forest Prods. Indus. v. Emp. Benefits Ins., 678 P.2d 266 (Or. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Warm Springs Forest Prods. Indus. v. Emp. Benefits Ins., 678 P.2d 266 (Or. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WARM SPRINGS FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES, on Review
v.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INSURANCE CO., on Review
NO. A8010-05866, CA A24017, SC S30073.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Apr 3, 1984.
678 P.2d 266
James N. Westwood, Bruce A. Rubin, John A. Lusky and Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager & Carlsen, Portland, for petitioner on review. On the brief in the Court of Appeals were James N. Westwood, Fredric A. Yerke, Bruce A. Rubin and Miller, Nash, Yerke, Wiener & Hager, Portland., On the briefs in the Court of Appeals for respondent on review were R.L. Marceau, Howard G. Arnett and Johnson, Marceau, Karnopp & Petersen, Bend.
Carson, Jones, Lent, Linde, Peterson.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*710] MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant’s petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals, insofar as that decision is based upon Mountain Fir Lbr Co. v. EBI Co., 64 Or App 312, 667 P2d 567 (1983), is reversed. See Mountain Fir Lbr Co. v. EBI Co., 296 Or 639, 679 P2d 296 (1984).

Plaintiff, respondent on review in this court, contends that the Court of Appeals did not address plaintiffs argument in that court “that Federal Indian law principles preclude the application of the State Insurance Code statute which provides the basis for the illegality claim.” Defendant replies that that contention was either not properly before the Court of Appeals or that that court has already summarily disposed of it against the plaintiff. On the record before us, we cannot resolve that controversy.

This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for its consideration of that issue.