Estate of Krueger v. Ropp ( 1978 )

LENT, J.,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I concur in the result and all portions of the opinion of the court except the discussion of the necessity of proof of the oral contract by "clear, concise, and convincing evidence” or "clear and convincing evidence.” All the trial court and we are here doing is to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Necessarily we are "convinced” by the version which we find more probably true than false; i.e., that which we find believable. It doesn’t really matter that the evidence is not at all "concise.” See concurring opinion of Lent, J., in Byers v. Santiam Ford, 281 Or 411, 420, 574 P2d 1122 (1978). See also Jensen v. Miller, 280 Or 225, 229 n.1, 570 P2d 375 (1977).