Legal Opinion

Carvalho v. Wolfe

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 2, 2006No. 041844-L7; A126673PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint, in which they sought damages for trespass, nuisance, and negligence, as well as an injunction. The trial court granted defendants’ motions under ORCP 21 A(8) to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims and entered a general judgment of dismissal. On appeal, plaintiffs seek reversal only as to the claims for trespass and nuisance. We affirm.

Because the issue on appeal is the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint, we accept as true all of their well-pleaded allegations and give them the benefit of all favorable inferences that may follow…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. MARTIN ET UX v. Reynolds Metals Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Granewich v. HardingOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Loe Et Ux v. LenhardOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Michalson v. NuttingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  5. Furrer v. Talent Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pacificorp v. Northwest Pipeline GPDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2012
  2. Goldingay v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 2018
  3. Anduze v. LeaderSuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015
  4. Gibson v. MorrisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  5. Spivak v. MarriottCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

1 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