Migis v. Autozone, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 310 June 21, 2017 357 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE 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. Multnomah County Circuit Court 071113531; A150540 Jerome E. LaBarre, Judge. On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed January 24, 2017 and respondent’s response to petition for reconsideration filed January 27, 2017. Opinion filed December 14, 2016. 282 Or App 774, 387 P3d 381. Roy Pulvers and Holland & Knight LLP for petition. A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered to. 358 Migis v. Autozone, Inc. 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 penalties 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. to. Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered
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.
