1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 709 P.2d
  5. 709 P.2d 246 (1985)
 

ROACH v. MEAD

A8303-01681; CA A32821.

709 P.2d 246 (1985)

76 Or.App. 83

William ROACH, Respondent — Cross-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. MEAD, Dba Berentson & Mead, Defendant-Cross-Respondent, David J. Berentson, Dba Berentson & Mead, Appellants — Cross-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided October 30, 1985.

Reconsideration Denied December 20, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Emil R. Berg, Portland, argued the cause for appellant — cross-respondent David J. Berentson. With him on briefs was Hallmark, Griffith & Keating, Portland.

Stephen R. Frank, Portland, argued the cause for respondent — cross-appellant. On brief were Paul R. Duden and Tooze, Marshall, Shenker, Holloway & Duden, Portland.

No appearance for appellant — cross-respondent Kenneth E. Mead.

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

GILLETTE, Presiding Judge.

In this legal malpractice case, defendant Berentson (defendant), a lawyer, appeals a judgment holding him vicariously liable for common law negligence and for a violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by defendant Mead, his former law partner. Plaintiff cross-appeals the trial court's action in striking his claims under the Oregon Securities Law. We reverse as to the UTPA claim and otherwise affirm.

Defendant and Mead...

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