MIGIS v. AUTOZONE INC (2017)

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent.

A150540

Decided: June 21, 2017

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

Roy Pulvers and Holland & Knight LLP for petition. A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response.

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Autozone, Inc., petitions for reconsideration of our decision, Migis v. Autozone, Inc., 282 Or App 774, 387 P3d 381 (2016), concerning the disposition of its appeal. Defendant argues that concepts of waiver or invited error should preclude a new trial on the off-the-clock claim penal-ties and compel a defense verdict on that issue as a matter of law. We allow the petition for reconsideration to state that we reject those arguments. Without further discussion, we adhere to our original decision.

Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered to.

PER CURIAM

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law