Summary
concluding that, under Hale, an incidental beneficiary could not maintain a legal malpractice claim
Summary of this case from Smith v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.Opinion
June 19, 2001
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jun 19, 2001
332 Or. 250 (Or. 2001)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jun 19, 2001
332 Or. 250 (Or. 2001)
concluding that, under Hale, an incidental beneficiary could not maintain a legal malpractice claim
Summary of this case from Smith v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.Case details for
Petitions for Review
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jun 19, 2001
Citations
332 Or. 250 (Or. 2001)
Citing Cases
Utsey v. Coos County
The power to define "rights" — which parties may seek to protect through the judicial process — is properly…
Stonecrest Props., LLC v. City of EugeneA person is a donee beneficiary if, under the circumstances, it appears from the terms of the contract that…