Full text
Sigitas BANAITIS, on Review v. MITSUBISHI BANK, LTD., and Bank of California, N.A., on Review, and Karen LESH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Review dismissed as improvidently allowed.
Van Hoomissen and Durham, JJ., would not dismiss.
Loading…
Loading…
Opinion
321 Or. 511 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1995
Full text
Sigitas BANAITIS, on Review v. MITSUBISHI BANK, LTD., and Bank of California, N.A., on Review, and Karen LESH
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2004
Ninth Circuit · Aug 27, 2003
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 2003
Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 2000
Parentheticals
noting that two justices voted against dismissal
“[W]e cannot say that the instructions, taken as a whole, caused the jury to decide the case one way or the other.”
“A motion to strike is untimely, unless it is made as soon as the ground for the motion [is] disclosed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
the defendant’s ownership of stock in the plaintiffs employer, by itself, did not make the defendant a party to the plaintiff’s employment contract and shield the defendant from liability for interfering with the contract
e.g., bank employee discharged for refusing to disclose confidential customer financial information