Belgarde v. Linn

Parentheticals

• "We do not consider arguments for reversal of a trial court ruling raised for the first time in a reply brief."

  State v. Murga

• “We do not consider arguments for reversal of a trial court ruling raised for the first time in a reply brief[.]” (Citing Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 380-81, 823 P2d 956 (1991).

  Vukasin v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

• reliance on an ORCP 47 E affidavit is inappropriate where the plaintiff was not required to provide the opinion of an expert to establish whether the defendants acted in good faith reliance on the advice of their legal counsel

  Tarlow v. Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP

• “We do not consider arguments for reversal of a trial court ruling raised for the first time in a reply brief[.]” (Citing Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 380-81, 823 P2d 956 (1991).); cf. US Bank, NA v. Eckert, 267 Or App 721, 722, 341 P3d 173 (2014

  Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Goodrich

• affidavit under ORCP 47 E ineffective where inappropriate

  Scheffel v. Oregon Beta Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity