Migis v. AutoZone, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gessele v. Jack In The Box Inc. (District Court, D. Oregon 2024)
- Marshall v. Cannady (Or. Ct. App. 2018)
- Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Association (Or. Ct. App. 2026)
- James v. PacifiCorp (Or. Ct. App. 2026)
- Dept. of Human Services v. E. M. S. M. (Or. Ct. App. 2025)
- Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co. (Or. Ct. App. 2025)
- Gessele v. Jack In The Box Inc. (District Court, D. Oregon 2023)
- James v. PacifiCorp (Or. Ct. App. 2023)
- Wilkins and Wilkins (Or. Ct. App. 2022)
- Schnitzer and Schnitzer (Or. Ct. App. 2020)
- John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc. (Or. Ct. App. 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered to.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.