emphasis defendant in Oregon

1996It argues that the indictment, meets the criteria set forth in case law interpreting ORICO: The statutory language sufficiently apprises defendant of the offense, see State v. Vermaas, 116 Or App 413, 417 , 841 P2d 664 (1992), rev den 316 Or 142 (1993) (rejecting argument that indictment that provided details of predicate offenses was insufficient to apprise defendant of “unlawful enterprise”); it alleges the predicate offenses with particularity, State v. Romig, 73 Or App 780, 788-89 , 700 P2d 293 , rev den 299 Or 663 (1985), and it tracks the language of the ORICO statute.

1996It argues that the indictment, meets the criteria set forth in case law interpreting ORICO: The statutory language sufficiently apprises defendant of the offense, see State v. Vermaas, 116 Or App 413, 417 , 841 P2d 664 (1992), rev den 316 Or 142 (1993) (rejecting argument that indictment that provided details of predicate offenses was insufficient to apprise defendant of “unlawful enterprise”); it alleges the predicate offenses with particularity, State v. Romig, 73 Or App 780, 788-89 , 700 P2d 293 , rev den 299 Or 663 (1985), and it tracks the language of the ORICO statute.

1996It argues that the indictment, meets the criteria set forth in case law interpreting ORICO: The statutory language sufficiently apprises defendant of the offense, see State v. Vermaas, 116 Or App 413, 417 , 841 P2d 664 (1992), rev den 316 Or 142 (1993) (rejecting argument that indictment that provided details of predicate offenses was insufficient to apprise defendant of “unlawful enterprise”); it alleges the predicate offenses with particularity, State v. Romig, 73 Or App 780, 788-89 , 700 P2d 293 , rev den 299 Or 663 (1985), and it tracks the language of the ORICO statute.

1996It argues that the indictment, meets the criteria set forth in case law interpreting ORICO: The statutory language sufficiently apprises defendant of the offense, see State v. Vermaas, 116 Or App 413, 417 , 841 P2d 664 (1992), rev den 316 Or 142 (1993) (rejecting argument that indictment that provided details of predicate offenses was insufficient to apprise defendant of “unlawful enterprise”); it alleges the predicate offenses with particularity, State v. Romig, 73 Or App 780, 788-89 , 700 P2d 293 , rev den 299 Or 663 (1985), and it tracks the language of the ORICO statute.

1995And, to the extent that they are unconstitutional, such exactions cannot be competent evidence in a jury trial to determine just compensation.” (Emphasis defendants.) Defendants also rely on our decision in Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 131 Or App 220 , 884 P2d 569 (1994).

1995And, to the extent that they are unconstitutional, such exactions cannot be competent evidence in a jury trial to determine just compensation.” (Emphasis defendants.) Defendants also rely on our decision in Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 131 Or App 220 , 884 P2d 569 (1994).

1994The herbicide labels could have been received subject to the condition the plaintiffs later prove that a violation of the labels’ directives caused [the plaintiffs’] damage.’ (Emphasis defendant’s.)” 106 Or App at 607 .

1991Consequently, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty against these defendants, acting as shareholders of CDS, was properly dismissed.” (Emphasis defendants’.) We agree with defendants that only an individual or a small group of shareholders who own a majority of the voting shares, or shareholders who, for other reasons, have domination or control, owe fiduciary obligations to the minority. 2 See Zidell v. Zidell, Inc. (24128), 277 Or 413, 418 , 560 P2d 1086 (1977), and authorities there cited; Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or App 604, 619-23 , 767 P2d 903 , modified 96 Or App 658 , 774 P2d 5

1991Consequently, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty against these defendants, acting as shareholders of CDS, was properly dismissed.” (Emphasis defendants’.) We agree with defendants that only an individual or a small group of shareholders who own a majority of the voting shares, or shareholders who, for other reasons, have domination or control, owe fiduciary obligations to the minority. 2 See Zidell v. Zidell, Inc. (24128), 277 Or 413, 418 , 560 P2d 1086 (1977), and authorities there cited; Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or App 604, 619-23 , 767 P2d 903 , modified 96 Or App 658 , 774 P2d 5

1991Consequently, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty against these defendants, acting as shareholders of CDS, was properly dismissed.” (Emphasis defendants’.) We agree with defendants that only an individual or a small group of shareholders who own a majority of the voting shares, or shareholders who, for other reasons, have domination or control, owe fiduciary obligations to the minority. 2 See Zidell v. Zidell, Inc. (24128), 277 Or 413, 418 , 560 P2d 1086 (1977), and authorities there cited; Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or App 604, 619-23 , 767 P2d 903 , modified 96 Or App 658 , 774 P2d 5

1991Consequently, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty against these defendants, acting as shareholders of CDS, was properly dismissed.” (Emphasis defendants’.) We agree with defendants that only an individual or a small group of shareholders who own a majority of the voting shares, or shareholders who, for other reasons, have domination or control, owe fiduciary obligations to the minority. 2 See Zidell v. Zidell, Inc. (24128), 277 Or 413, 418 , 560 P2d 1086 (1977), and authorities there cited; Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or App 604, 619-23 , 767 P2d 903 , modified 96 Or App 658 , 774 P2d 5

1991Consequently, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty against these defendants, acting as shareholders of CDS, was properly dismissed.” (Emphasis defendants’.) We agree with defendants that only an individual or a small group of shareholders who own a majority of the voting shares, or shareholders who, for other reasons, have domination or control, owe fiduciary obligations to the minority. 2 See Zidell v. Zidell, Inc. (24128), 277 Or 413, 418 , 560 P2d 1086 (1977), and authorities there cited; Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or App 604, 619-23 , 767 P2d 903 , modified 96 Or App 658 , 774 P2d 5

1991Consequently, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty against these defendants, acting as shareholders of CDS, was properly dismissed.” (Emphasis defendants’.) We agree with defendants that only an individual or a small group of shareholders who own a majority of the voting shares, or shareholders who, for other reasons, have domination or control, owe fiduciary obligations to the minority. 2 See Zidell v. Zidell, Inc. (24128), 277 Or 413, 418 , 560 P2d 1086 (1977), and authorities there cited; Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or App 604, 619-23 , 767 P2d 903 , modified 96 Or App 658 , 774 P2d 5

1991Defendant cites McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or. 31 (1853), for the proposition that a "new statute applies if the plaintiff/petitioner actually had a reasonable period after the effective date in which to file the action." (Emphasis defendant's.) First, as defendant appears to concede, later cases, including Reynolds Metals Co. v. State Tax Comm., supra ; Fullerton v. Lamm, supra ; and Pitman v. Bump, supra , have rendered McLaughlin an "historical curiosity." In any event, the case is distinguishable.

1991Defendant cites McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or 31 (1853), for the proposition that a “new statute applies if the plaintiff/petitioner actually had a reasonable period after the effective date in which to file the action.” (Emphasis defendant’s.) First, as defendant appears to concede, later cases, including Reynolds Metals Co. v. State Tax Comm., supra; Fullerton v. Lamm, supra; and Pitman v. Bump, supra, have rendered McLaughlin an “historical curiosity.” In any event, the case is distinguishable.

1991Defendant cites McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or. 31 (1853), for the proposition that a "new statute applies if the plaintiff/petitioner actually had a reasonable period after the effective date in which to file the action." (Emphasis defendant's.) First, as defendant appears to concede, later cases, including Reynolds Metals Co. v. State Tax Comm., supra ; Fullerton v. Lamm, supra ; and Pitman v. Bump, supra , have rendered McLaughlin an "historical curiosity." In any event, the case is distinguishable.

1991Defendant cites McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or 31 (1853), for the proposition that a “new statute applies if the plaintiff/petitioner actually had a reasonable period after the effective date in which to file the action.” (Emphasis defendant’s.) First, as defendant appears to concede, later cases, including Reynolds Metals Co. v. State Tax Comm., supra; Fullerton v. Lamm, supra; and Pitman v. Bump, supra, have rendered McLaughlin an “historical curiosity.” In any event, the case is distinguishable.

1987No. 1 v. Multnomah County, supra, 9 OTR at 377 .] An obvious flaw in this approach, not discussed by the court, is the presence of the word ‘particular’; there could hardly be a clearer indication that the Legislature intended that ‘municipal corporation’ not be pluralized.” (Emphasis defendants’.) With or without the rule of construction which the tax court employed, there is little to be said for defendants’ argument.

1983However, as defendants note: “The plaintiff may proceed on quantum meruit or implied contract only if the complaint states a cause of action for labor performed or materials supplied. * * *” (Emphasis defendants’.) See B&D Investment v. Petticord, 48 Or App 345, 348 , 617 P2d 276 , rev den 290 Or 302 (1980), and authorities there cited.

1983However, as defendants note: “The plaintiff may proceed on quantum meruit or implied contract only if the complaint states a cause of action for labor performed or materials supplied. * * *” (Emphasis defendants’.) See B&D Investment v. Petticord, 48 Or App 345, 348 , 617 P2d 276 , rev den 290 Or 302 (1980), and authorities there cited.

1983Instead, Article I, section 8 supports a higher standard than the minimum standard of negligence required by Gertz.” (Emphasis defendants.) Deras v. Myers, supra, and State v. Robertson, supra, dealt with the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting or criminalizing communicative activity.