Petitions for review, January 29, 2009

690
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
(201 P3d 910)
ALLOWED
January 29, 2009
McDowell v. Employment Department (A136061)(8056569)(222 Or App 170)
State v. Lupoli, Tyler James (A132083/84)(S056477)(219 Or App 665)
DENIED
January 29, 2009
Curl and Western Radio, Inc. v. City ofBend (A139432)(S056632)(222 Or App 525)
Fedora v. Fedora (A135355}(8056666)(222 Or App 526)
Fernandez, Robert v. Blacketter (A135870)(8056747)(222 Or App 605)
Papenfus, Michael F. v. Hill (A131687)(S056573)(222 Or App 214)
Schroeder Law Offices, PC v. Lane (A127731)(S056734)(219 Or App 665)
Smith, Arlen Porterv. Department of Corrections (A114180)(S056574)(219 Or App
192)
State ex rel Department of Human Services v. A. T. (A137955)(S056825)(223 Or
App 574)
State v. Aguilar-Morales, Eric (Al32544/45)(S056722)(223 Or App 259)
State v. Cave, Timothy Bruce (A129267/68)(S056723)(223 Or App 60)
State v. Christine, Brian Edward (A135893)(S056827)(224 Or App 177)
State v. Curtis, Robert Charles (A135005)(S056621)(223 Or App 259)
State v. Escalera, Andrew Douglas (A133736)(8056720)(223 Or App 26)
State v. Graham, Mark Dean (A13491 l)(S056813){224 Or App 177)
State v. Hanson, Rodney Clark (A133836){8056744){222 Or App 331)
State v. Leininger, Russell Charles {A133293)(S056787)(224 Or App 177). Walters,
J., would allow.
State v. Martin, Latoya Monique (A131594)(S056807)(222 Or App 138)
State v. Merida-Medina, Victor {Al28340)(S056679)(221 Or App 614)
State v. Nguyen, Sang Van (A130563)(S056650)(222 Or App 55)
State v. Odaol, Albert Justino (A133455)(S056716)(223 Or App 259)
State v. Ross, John Frances (Al32578)(S056769)(224 Or App 178)
Uppiano v. Professional Liability Fund and Smith (A135357)(S056708)(221 Or App
702)
Valley Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Babcock and Estate of Jerry
D. Babcock (A136965)(S056789)(223 Or App 761)
Ward and Ward (A135582)(8056714)(223 Or App 259)
(201 P3d 911)
DISMISSED
January 29, 2009
State v. Hutchins, Thomas B. (A128171)(S055381)(214 Or App 260, rev allowed,
344 Or 280 (2008)). Upon consideration by the court. The motion submitted by
respondent on review to dismiss the petition for review in this case as moot due
to respondent's death is granted. Petitioner on review's motion to vacate the
Court of Appeals opinion below is denied without prejudice; petitioner on
review is free to file such a motion in the Court of Appeals. The petition for
review is therefore dismissed as moot and the case remanded to the Court of
Appeals for further proceedings under the Oregon Rules of Appellate Proce-
dure (ORAP) 8.05(2)(c)(ii).