Johnson v. Civil Service Board

Annotate this Case

FILED: September 15, 1999

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

DARYL JOHNSON,
Appellant,

v.

CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY
OF PORTLAND, PORTLAND PARKS AND
RECREATION BUREAU, and CITY OF
PORTLAND,
Respondents.

(9610008072; CA A98841)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

William J. Keys, Judge.

On appellant's motion for clarification of disposition filed August 4, 1999, and respondent's response filed August 10, 1999. Opinion filed July 7, 1999, 161 Or App 489, ___ P2d ___ (1999).

Susan D. Marmaduke and James, Denecke, Urrutia & Marmaduke, P.C., for motion.

Liana Colombo, Deputy City Attorney, and Marianna Kanwit, contra.

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

HASELTON, J.

Reconsideration granted; disposition modified to read: "Reversed and remanded with instructions to issue writ reversing decision of Civil Service Board and determining petitioner's entitlement to ancillary relief, including reinstatement and restitution, pursuant to ORS 34.100."; otherwise adhered to.

HASELTON, J.

Appellant has moved to "clarify" our disposition because "[i]t seems the parties are unable to agree on what the Court of Appeals intended to happen next." We allow the motion. Our disposition "Reversed and remanded," Johnson v. Civil Service Board, 161 Or App 489, 506, ___ P2d ___ (1999), is clarified and modified to read: "Reversed and remanded with instructions to issue writ reversing decision of Civil Service Board and determining petitioner's entitlement to ancillary relief, including reinstatement and restitution, pursuant to ORS 34.100."

Reconsideration granted; disposition modified to read: "Reversed and remanded with instructions to issue writ reversing decision of Civil Service Board and determining petitioner's entitlement to ancillary relief, including reinstatement and restitution, pursuant to ORS 34.100."; otherwise adhered to.

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.