BRUNICK v. CLATSOP COUNTY

01-2187; A122339.

129 P.3d 738 (2006)

204 Or. App. 326

Joseph BRUNICK, Appellant, v. CLATSOP COUNTY, John Raichl, Cora Lane, Charles Hatcher and Ron Stevens, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided February 15, 2006.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Thane Tienson, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Dain Paulson and Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP.

Cecil A. Reniche-Smith, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Janet M. Schroer and Hoffman, Hart & Wagner, LLP.

Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge.


ARMSTRONG, J.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on his wrongful discharge claims. He first assigns error to the trial court's conclusion that, because plaintiff was an at-will county employee, the county was not obligated to afford him due process when it terminated his employment with the county. He asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that he was an at-will employee...

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