1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 733 P.2d
  5. 733 P.2d 485 (1987)
 

COMPUTERIZED DESIGN & MFG. v. GENRAD, INC.

A8309-05914; CA A36982.

733 P.2d 485 (1987)

84 Or.App. 189

COMPUTERIZED DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING, Inc., Appellant, v. GENRAD, INC. and Grant & Roth Plastics, Inc., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided March 4, 1987.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Roger J. Leo, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were David W. Harper, Portland, and Harper, Leo, Hollander and Parker, Portland.

Janet C. Neuman, Portland, argued the cause for respondent GenRad, Inc. With her on the brief were Don H. Marmaduke, Portland, and Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, Portland.

Steven W. Seymour, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Grant & Roth Plastics, Inc. With him on the brief were Kevin E. Brannon, Portland, and Samuels, Samuels, Yoelin & Weiner, Portland.

Before WARDEN, P.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN and YOUNG, JJ.

VAN HOOMISSEN, Judge.

Computerized Design and Manufacturing, Inc. (CDM) appeals from a trial court judgment dismissing its negligence claims against both defendants.1 It contends that the trial court erred in concluding that its third amended complaint did not state a claim for negligence against GenRad, Inc. (GenRad), because GenRad owed no duty to CDM, or against Grant & Roth Plastics, Inc. (Grant & Roth), because the only duties...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases