# Portland General Electric Co. v. U.S. Bank Trust National Ass'n

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 17, 2000 · 218 F.3d 1085

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6986004

## Case

- **Full name:** PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-claim v. U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR TRUST NO. 1, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 17, 2000
- **Citations:** 218 F.3d 1085; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 7819; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5883; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 16498
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McKeown
- **Judges:** Lay, McKeown, Tashima
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6986004

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that current three-judge panel was “bound” by prior ease interpreting state law that was decided by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel, even though it was doubtful that the prior case “was correctly decided”
- finding that a question of law was preserved where parties had fully briefed the issue to the court, even though one party made an error of legal interpretation
- applying Oregon state law definition and declining to treat an “appraisal” as an *1079 arbitration

## Opinion text

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge,
special joinder in concurrence:
Although I am the author of the opinion, I join in Judge Tashima’s concurrence because I question the vitality of Wasyl, Inc. v. First Boston Corp., 813 F.2d 1579 (9th Cir.1987). At issue is a question of statutory interpretation. Whether this appraisal contract calls for an “arbitration” within the scope of the FAA therefore strikes me as a question of federal law. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plym *1092 outh, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 , 105 S.Ct. 3346 , 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) (holding courts determine whether parties agreed to arbitration under FAA’s “substantive law of arbitrability”) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6986004. Public record. Not legal advice.