FILED: July 12, 2000

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

Appellant,

v.

KEITH DEE WRIGHT,

Respondent.

(99-1018; CA A106682)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clatsop County.

Paula J. Brownhill, Judge.

On respondent's petition for reconsideration filed May 31, 2000. Opinion filed May 17, 2000. 167 Or App 297, ___ P2d ___.

Elizabeth A. Baldwin for petition.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges.

HASELTON, J.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

HASELTON, J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration, challenging our opinion, State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, ___ P2d ___ (2000), in many respects. We allow the petition to correct one statement in our opinion and reject defendant's other challenges without discussion.

Our opinion states:

"Defendant responds that 'sufficiency' under subsection (4) and 'definiteness and certainty' under subsection (2) and ORS 132.550(7) are distinct concepts and distinct requirements--generally analogous in the civil context to the bases for a motion to dismiss for 'failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim,' ORCP 21 A(8), and a motion to make more definite and certain under ORCP 21 D." 167 Or App at 303-04 (original emphasis bold; emphasis added).

Defendant contends that he never analogized a demurrer for lack of specificity to an ORCP 21 motion. That is correct. The italicized language, while generally intended to illustrate the distinction defendant posited, is not properly ascribed to defendant. Accordingly, the opinion is modified so that the balance of the sentence following "requirements" is deleted.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion modified and adhered to as modified.


Top of page Go home

divider line

State of Oregon Seal