Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., 398 P.3d 360 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., 398 P.3d 360 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James v. PacifiCorp (orctapp, 2023-01-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" James v. PacifiCorp
Or. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., 282 Or App 774, 782 , 387 Cite as 323 Or App 764 (2023) 771 P3d 381 (2016), adh’d to on recons, 286 Or App 357 , 396 P3d 309 , rev den, 362 Or 300 (2017) (this court reviews a trial court’s determination as to the single predominance factor for legal error).
discussed Cited "see" John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc.
Or. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., 282 Or App 774, 805 , 387 P3d 381 (2016), adh’d to in part on recons, 286 Or App 357 , 396 P3d 309 (2017) (“Compliance with ORAP 5.45 is not a matter of mere form; it is crucial to our ability to review trial court rulings for error and to determine whether the appellant’s claims of error were preserved below.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich, 170 Or App 219, 224 , 12 P3d 507 (2000) (“[T]he information the rules require enables the court and the opposing party to identify the specific ruling the appellant assigns as error…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent
v.
AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation
071113531; A150540.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Jun 21, 2017.
398 P.3d 360
Roy Pulvers and Holland & Knight LLP for petition., A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response.
Devore, Garrett, Ortega.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM

Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., petitions for reconsideration of our decision, Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., 282 Or App 774, 387 P3d 381 (2016), concerning the disposition of its appeal. Defendant argues that concepts of waiver or invited error should preclude a new trial on the off-the-clock claim penalties and compel a defense verdict on that issue as a matter of law. We allow the petition for reconsideration to state that we reject those arguments. Without further discussion, we adhere to our original decision.

Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered to.