Great West Construction Co. v. Martin Corp.

Annotate this Case

FILED: February 21, 2001

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

GREAT WEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
an Oregon corporation,

Appellant,

v.

MARTIN CORPORATION,
an Oregon corporation,
MICHAEL L. MARTIN, JINNY R. MARTIN
and AQUATIC DESIGNS, INC.,
an Oregon corporation,

Respondents.

________________________________

MARTIN CORPORATION,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

JACKSON SCHOOL VILLAGE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Third-Party Defendant.

(9607-05717; CA A100353)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Henry Kantor, Judge.

On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed November 14, 2000, and respondents' response to petition for reconsideration filed December 5, 2000. Opinion filed November 1, 2000. 170 Or App 616, 13 P3d 1016.

M. Elizabeth Duncan and Greene & Markley, P.C., for petition.

G. Kenneth Shiroishi, Brenda K. Baumgart, and Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, contra.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Brewer, Judges.

LANDAU, P. J.

Reconsideration allowed and disposition withdrawn; reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $58,775.66 and for further proceedings on remaining equitable claims.

LANDAU, P. J.

Plaintiff petitions for reconsideration of our opinion, Great West Construction Co. v. Martin Corp., 170 Or App 616, 13 P3d 1016 (2000), in which we reversed judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff on its breach of contract claim. Plaintiff seeks clarification of the effect of our opinion on unresolved equitable claims against other defendants. Plaintiff points out that, in its briefing on appeal, it did ask this court to reverse on the contract claim and to remand for further proceedings on the equitable claims that essentially had been rendered moot by the trial court's disposition of the contract claim. Plaintiff is correct.

Reconsideration allowed and disposition withdrawn; reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $58,775.66 and for further proceedings on remaining equitable claims.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.