Legal Opinion

Martin v. Blakney

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 22, 1987No. A8511-07296; CA A39977PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendants gave plaintiff a notice of deposition. Less than two hours before the time fixed for the deposition, plaintiff’s attorney informed defendants’ counsel that he was unable to attend. The deposition was reset, but neither plaintiff nor his attorney appeared for that deposition. Defendants’ counsel moved for sanctions under ORCP 46. When the motion was called for hearing by the presiding judge, neither plaintiff nor his counsel was present. The court dismissed plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and are persuaded that the court did not abuse its discretion.

A…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wallace v. HoldenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  2. Boline v. WhiteheadCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API