Wels v. Hippe
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 4 February 2, 2017 807 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON John B. WELS, Jr., Respondent on Review, v. Douglas W. HIPPE, Defendant, and Le Roy HIPPE and Cheryl Hippe, Petitioners on Review. (CC 101215E3; CA A150238; SC S063486) On petition for reconsideration filed by petitioners on review December 5, 2016; considered and under advisement January 4, 2017.* Clayton C. Patrick, Clatskanie, filed the petition for reconsideration for petitioners on review. No appearance contra. Before, Balmer, Chief Justice, and Kistler, Walters, Landau, Baldwin, and Brewer, Justices, and DeHoog, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Justice pro tempore.** LANDAU, J. The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified. Case Summary: In a claim for a prescriptive easement, the Supreme Court originally remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Held: the opinion of the Supreme Court is modified to remand the case to the circuit court for entry of judgment in defendants’ favor. The original opinion is adhered to as modified. The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified. ______________ ** 360 Or 569, ____ P3d ____ (2016); 269 Or App 785, 347 P3d 788 (2015). ** Nakamoto, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. 808 Wels v. Hippe LANDAU, J. Defendants have petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion in Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or 569, ___ P3d ___ (2016). Defendants prevailed but seek clarification of our instruction remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Defendants assert that this instruction requires the trial court to vacate its original judgment in favor of plaintiff and enter judgment in favor of defendants, rather than holding a new trial and allowing plaintiff to present further evidence. We agree that clarification is warranted as follows: The case is remanded to the circuit court for entry of judgment in defendants’ favor, and the award of costs is modified accordingly. The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
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.
