Legal Opinion
Natkin & Co. v. H.D. Fowler Co.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided June 8, 1994No. C92-0393CV; CA A78899PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*313WARREN, P. J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing its complaint for failure to state a claim. ORCP 21A(8). We reverse in part and affirm in part.
In reviewing the granting of a motion to dismiss, we assume the truth of all allegations, as well as any inferences that may be drawn from them, and view them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Oksenholt v. Lederle Laboratories, 294 Or 213, 215, 656 P2d 293 (1982). We determine whether the complaint states a claim as a matter of law. Hansen v. Anderson, 113 Or App 216, 218, 831 P2d 717 (1992).
Plaintiff is a subcontractor.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Schafer v. Fraser Et UxOregon Supreme Court · 1956
- Bixler v. First Nat. Bank of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
- Oksenholt v. LEDERLE LABORATORIES, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Hansen v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- City of Ashland v. HoffarthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Loewen v. GalliganCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Global Executive Management Solutions, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, D. Oregon · 2017
- Mittleman Properties v. Bank of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Duncan v. Office DepotDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1997
- Franke v. Oregon Department of Fish & WildlifeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.