Everman v. Lockwood
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.
Plaintiff brought this action alleging that defendants had converted a portable sawmill. As an affirmative defense, defendants alleged, inter alia, that plaintiffs claim was barred by the statute of limitations. After a trial to the court, the court agreed that plaintiffs claim was barred because his claim accrued in 1986, more than six years before he filed this action. ORS 12.080(4). Plaintiff appeals. We review de novo to determine if there is evidence to support the trial court’s judgment, Lieuallen v. Heidenrich, 259 Or 333, 334, 485 P2d 1230 (1971), and affirm.
The evidence showed that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mustola v. ToddyOregon Supreme Court · 1969
- United Engine Parts, Inc. v. RiedOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Lieuallen Land & Livestock Corp. v. HeidenrichOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Legg v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
3Cited by3 opinions
- Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific TransportationCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Rice v. RabbCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- Azewen-Jik Kante v. Nike, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010