WebAug 12, 2016 · On August 12, 2016, Espy, Sally filed a Breach of Contract - (Commercial) case against Prentice, Jim respresented by Belisle, Michael T et al. in the jurisdiction of Lane County, OR. This case was filed in Lane County Superior Courts, with None presiding. WebJul 7, 2016 · The question under ORCP 21 A(3) of whether another action pending is for the “same cause” is informed by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion: “In Lee v. Mitchell, 152 Or App 159, 164, 165, 953 P2d 414 (1998), we recognized that a dismissal for another action pending under ORCP 21 A(3) furthers the same purpose as that underlying ...
Hillsboro Oregon Plaintiff
WebSep 10, 2003 · However, the context of ORCP 21 A (1) sheds light on the legislature's intent in that regard. The Oregon legislature enacted the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure in 1979 and made them operative on January 1, 1980. Or Laws 1979, ch 284, §§ 3, 201. WebJul 13, 2011 · Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing under ORCP 21 their claims for declaratory judgment, interference with economic relations, reformation, and constructive trust, arising out of a family dispute and the ownership of a farm property in Canby, Oregon. grand rapids township map
State Motion to Dismiss - Oregon Law Center
WebDefendants move to dismiss pursuant to ORCP 21 A(1) for lack of jurisdiction and ORCP 21 A(8) for failure to state a claim due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Oregon Tort Claims Act. As such, this case is proper for dismissal. LEGAL STANDARD In considering a motion to dismiss under ORCP 21 A, a trial court accepts all well- WebORCP 7C(2). If defendant provides notice of intent to appear, plaintiff must give 10 days notice before moving for default. ORCP 69 B. ... ORCP 21 D : PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY FUND [Rev. 01/2024] Common Civil Litigation Time Limitations – Page 2 . ITEM TIME Order of Default . 30 days after service of summons, if no answer or motion filed. ORCP 7 Web183.490, so this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to ORCP 21 A(1). In addition, this Court should dismiss Petitioners’ third claim – asking this Court to order the agency to take certain action aimed at non-English speakers – because the statute they proceed under, ORS 183.490, does not provide the relief that they seek. grand rapids township zoning ordinance