Legal Opinion

Kohring v. Ballard

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 2014No. CC1111-14966; SC S060533PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.

The issue in this mandamus proceeding is whether the trial court correctly denied defendants’ motion to change venue. ORS 14.080(2) provides that venue is proper wherever a defendant engages in “regular, sustained business activity.” In this case, plaintiffs, a husband and wife, initiated a medical malpractice action against defendants in Multnomah County. Defendants argue that venue lies in Clackamas County, because that is where the clinic is located, where the doctor who provided the husband’s medical services resides, and where the husband received treatment. Plaintiffs argue that venue…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. State v. GuzekOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Purcell v. Bryn Mawr HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Comcast Corp. v. Department of RevenueOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. Gonzalez-ValenzuelaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Brown v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State v. JamesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

32 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