AVERILL v. RED LION, 120 Or. App. 232 (1993)

850 P.2d 1173

Alyse A. AVERILL, Appellant, v. RED LION, a California Limited Partnership, formerly known as R.L. Acquisition Company, Respondent.

A8812-06591; CA A65842Oregon Court of Appeals.
On appellant’s motion for clarification filed March 18, 1993 Motion for clarification granted; opinion (118 Or. App. 298, 846 P.2d 1203) clarified with instructions May 12, 1993 Reconsideration denied May 26, 1993 Petition for review denied July 27, 1993 (317 Or. 271)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Robert P. Jones, Judge.

Kathryn H. Clarke, Portland, for motion.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Landau, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Motion for clarification granted. Opinion clarified by directing trial court to vacate judgment n.o.v. entered June 20, 1990, and to reinstate judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered May 4, 1990.

Page 233

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff requests clarification of our opinion. 118 Or. App. 298, 846 P.2d 1203 (1993). In that opinion, we reversed and remanded “for entry of judgment on the verdict” in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff points out that a judgment on the verdict in her favor already was entered on May 4, 1990. That judgment was superseded by the judgment n.o.v., entered June 20, 1990, which we ordered must be set aside. Rather than enter a new judgment in plaintiff’s favor, she argues, we should order the trial court to set aside its June 20, 1990, judgment and to reinstate the original May 4, 1990, judgment.

Plaintiff is correct. Pearson v. Schmitt, 260 Or. 607, 609, 492 P.2d 269 (1971); Brewer v. Erwin, 70 Or. App. 709, 714, 690 P.2d 1122 (1984), mod 75 Or. App. 132, 705 P.2d 242 (1985).

Motion for clarification granted. Opinion clarified by directing trial court to vacate judgment n.o.v. entered June 20, 1990, and to reinstate judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered May 4, 1990.

Page 234