WOLF v. NEILL, 66 Or. App. 587 (1984)


674 P.2d 1192

WOLF et al, Appellants, v. NEILL et al, Respondents.

A8206-03384; CA A27991Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted December 16, 1983
Affirmed January 18, 1984 Reconsideration denied March 9, 1984 Petition for review denied March 27, 1984 (296 Or. 712)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Charles S. Crookham, Judge.

Michael H. Bloom, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Bloom, Marandas Sly, Portland.

William L. Larkins, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Black, Tremaine, Higgins, Lankton Krieger, Portland.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

Page 588

PER CURIAM

This case involves alleged lawyer malpractice. Defendants argued below that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief and, in the alternative, that their claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court concluded that the action was time barred and dismissed plaintiffs’ claim. Defendants renew both of their arguments on appeal. On the basis of our review of the record, we affirm on the ground that plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a valid claim for relief. Accordingly, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue.

Affirmed.

Page 589