Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the plain- tiffs’ affidavit stating that they had retained a qualified expert was sufficient alone to preclude summary judgment when it could be interpreted to address all points raised in the defendant’s motion
• explaining that “ORS 30.920 does not apply to simple service transactions” that do not involve the sale of a product
• explaining that, under ORCP 47, proponent of summary judgment must identify by motion the issues on which they contend that they are entitled to prevail as a matter of law, and that opponent need respond only to identified issues
• explaining, but not holding, that ORCP 47 C requires the party with the burden of proof to offer evidence only on the issues raised in the summary judgment motion
• explaining, but not holding, that ORCP 47 C requires the party with the burden of proof to offer evidence only on the issues raised in the summary judgment motion
• drawing a line between negligent service and product liability claims in Oregon law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).