Cruze v. Hudler

When the Court misstates an immaterial fact in an opinion, it may still reconsider the opinion, but only to make a minor correction to the prior opinion to delete the misstatement in question.

Defendant Markley petitioned for a reconsideration of the Court's decision in Cruze v. Hudler, 246 Or App 649 (2011). The Court allowed the petition to reconsider two contentions. First, Markley contended that he had extensively briefed the legal question of whether plaintiff had a "right to rely", an essential element of common-law fraud, and that the court failed to address those arguments. The Court explained that, in reversing the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in the earlier opinion, it was implicit that they considered and rejected without discussion Markley's arguments. Second, Markley contended that the Court stated a fact in the earlier opinion not supported by the summary judgment record. The Court found that the fact was immaterial, summarized the material facts they relied on, and modified the first opinion by deleting the single sentence that misstated the fact. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.