concluding that Abercrombie resolved the "historical uncertainty as to whether [parol evidence] should be admitted to assist the court in determining if an ambiguity exists"
Summary of this case from MARITIME SERVICES CORP. v. CCA COMPANIES, INC.1996.
concluding that Abercrombie resolved the "historical uncertainty as to whether [parol evidence] should be admitted to assist the court in determining if an ambiguity exists"
Summary of this case from MARITIME SERVICES CORP. v. CCA COMPANIES, INC.concluding that Abercrombie resolved the issue whether underlying circumstances may be considered in order to determine whether a term is ambiguous
Summary of this case from Batzer Construction, Inc. v. Boyerdescribing a similar two-stage inquiry for validity of service by publication pursuant to ORCP 7 D
Summary of this case from Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. G. A. B. (In re W. G. Z.)applying ORS chapter 42 rules to a deed
Summary of this case from Copeland Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Estate of Dillarddeclining to impose limitation on purposes of access easement where scope was "unambiguously left unrestricted"
Summary of this case from Murray v. Laugsandstating that trial court was obliged to dismiss a case because the accusatory instrument did not invoke its jurisdiction
Summary of this case from State v. GuzmanFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1996
As a second assignment of error, defendant contends that the district court had no jurisdiction to consider…
In re HuffmanIn February 1994, the court granted the motions and entered amended judgments of dismissal in favor of…