Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Reliance Insurance Co., 81-3698

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Citation707 F.2d 366
Docket NumberNo. 81-3698,81-3698
PartiesWEYERHAEUSER CO., a Washington Corp., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RELIANCE INSURANCE CO., Surety for Combustion Equipment Assoc. Inc., A New York Corp., and Combustion Corp., A California Corp., Defendants-Appellants, and Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Co., Inc., a Missouri Corp., Third Party Defendant.
Decision Date10 June 1983

W.A. Jerry North, Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellants.

Karen K. Creason, Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Gus J. Solomon, Judge.

Before KILKENNY, WALLACE and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

While this case was under submission this court decided the unrelated case of Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd., 702 F.2d 752 (9th Cir.1983). The decision in Turner deals with the sole issue presented in this appeal and holds exactly the opposite of what the district court held in its opinion and judgment of November 24, 1981. There being no contrary controlling authority from the Oregon courts, we are bound by the decision in Turner. Accordingly, the district court's decision is reversed, judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with directions for the court to enter a new judgment consistent with Turner.

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge, specially concurring.

I concur only by reason of the compulsion of this court's recent decision in Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd., 702 F.2d 752 (CA9 1983). Moreover, I am of the firm belief that the result in Turner contravenes the intent of the Oregon legislature when enacting the statutory change in Or.Rev.Stat. Sec. 82.010(3) (1981). There is nothing in previous Oregon case law which compels the Turner decision. However, we are bound by it.

Considering the legislative history of the statutory change, I fully agree with the district court in this case that the legislators intended to prevent the many abuses such as: (1) unfairness to victorious litigants unable to collect their judgments because the judgment debtors were taking advantage of the low statutory interest rates on the judgment; and (2) that the then statutory rate of interest was substantially below the prime interest rate and, consequently, worked a substantial disadvantage to the judgment creditor and to the general economy. Brauer v. City of Portland, 35 Or. 471, 60 P. 378 (1900), does not compel the result in Turner. The Turner court did not mention subsequent cases which indicate that changes in the statutory interest rate are subject to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Campbell v. U.S., 86-1622
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 3, 1987
    ...interest rate to an unpaid judgment because of apparently contrary state court decisions); Weyerhauser Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 707 F.2d 366, 367 (9th Cir.1983) (Kilkenny, J., specially concurring) (reluctantly following Turner but stating that a better decision would have applied the new ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT