Legal Opinion

Mitchem v. Rice

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 18, 1996No. C94-0378CV; CA A87838PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.

Plaintiff petitions for reconsideration of our opinion affirming the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that defendant had not been timely served. We allow the motion, modify our opinion and adhere to it as modified.

At issue in this case is whether plaintiff properly could avail herself of Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) service under ORCP 7 D(4)(a)(i), which provides that such alternative service is permissible as to defendants “who cannot be served with summons by any method specified in subsection D(3) of this rule.” ORCP 7 D(3)(a)(i), in turn,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Seeborg v. General Motors CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Kintigh v. ElliottOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Ter Har v. BackusOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Huffman v. Leon De MendozaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  2. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. MenkenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  3. Carlson v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  4. Gish v. YoungbloodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  5. Wright v. OsborneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

3 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