Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Tech. Corp., 736 P.2d 1023 (Or. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Tech. Corp., 736 P.2d 1023 (Or. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,007 William L. Baxter, Ppa Andrew T. Baxter, Third-Party-Defendant v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., Third-Party-Plaintiff (ca2, 1994-08-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,007 William L. Baxter, Ppa Andrew T. Baxter, Third-Party-Defendant v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., Third-Party-Plaintiff (2×)
2d Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp., 303 Or. 281 , 735 P.2d 614 (discussing whether Oregon product liability statute covers acts and omissions occurring after the product is first purchased), modified, 303 Or. 452 , 736 P.2d 1023 (1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ERICKSON AIR-CRANE COMPANY, on Review
v.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, on Review UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. SILVER GRIZZLY TIMBER COMPANY, LTD.
TC A8305-03355; CA A34839; SC S33021.
Oregon Supreme Court.
May 27, 1987.
736 P.2d 1023
1987 Ore. LEXIS 1393
Jonathan M. Hoffman, Joan L. Volpert and Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Biggs & Ericsson, Portland, filed the petition for respondent on review., No appearance contra.
Campbell, Carson, Gillette, Jones, Lent, Linde.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM

Respondent on review United Technologies Corporation petitions only for reconsideration of our disposition in this case, Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Tech. Corp., 303 Or 281, 735 P2d 614 (1987), arguing that, rather than reversing the Court of Appeals and affirming the trial court outright, our disposition should have been a remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of five assignments of error argued in that court by United Technologies but not considered. This argument is correct. See, e.g., Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O’Leary, 303 Or 297, 736 P2d 173 (1987).

Petition for reconsideration granted. The disposition of our former opinion is amended to read:

“The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.”