Legal Opinion

Rice v. Rabb

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 8, 2012No. CV091445; A145606PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSercombe, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing her claims for conversion and replevin on the ground that the claims were time barred under the six-year statute of limitations governing actions for the taking of personal property, ORS 12.080(4). On appeal, plaintiff contends that, although her action was not commenced within six years of the date her property was taken, her action was nevertheless timely because the statute of limitations in ORS 12.080(4) incorporates a “discovery rule,” which tolls the statute until a plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the injury. We conclude…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Berry v. BrannerOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Chaney v. Fields Chevrolet Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Cross v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1944

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rice v. RabbOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Whalen v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API