Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Multnomah County Department of Community Justice

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 2008No. CC 0406-06577; CA A128667; SC S054697PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

This case is concerned with the so-called “discovery rule,” as it applies to ORS 30.275(2)(b), a provision of the Oregon Tort Claim Act that requires any person bringing a tort claim against a public agency to give notice to the agency of the claim within 180 days of the alleged loss or injury.1 Specifically, it asks whether, and to what extent, the appearance of newspaper articles in local papers suggesting that a public agency may have had a role in a plaintiffs injury should be deemed to put that plaintiff on notice of his or her claim against the public agency, and thus trigger the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Berry v. BrannerOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Gaston v. ParsonsOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Adams v. Oregon State PoliceOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Forest Grove Brick Works, Inc. v. StricklandOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Greene v. Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Care CenterOregon Supreme Court · 2002

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  2. Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC.District Court, D. Oregon · 2011
  3. Johnson v. MULT. CO. DEPT. COMM. JUSTICEOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  4. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. Cecil Smith v. Evraz Inc. NaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API