Legal Opinion

Rice v. Rabb

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 2014No. CC CV091445; CA A145606; SC S060790PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.

This case requires us to decide whether the six-year statute of limitations applicable to conversion and replevin claims under ORS 12.080(4) incorporates a discovery rule to determine when such claims “accrue” pursuant to ORS 12.010. The Court of Appeals concluded that the limitation prescribed by ORS 12.080(4) begins to run at the time of the wrongful taking of personal property and that the provision does not incorporate a discovery rule. Rice v. Rabb, 251 Or App 603, 284 P3d 1178 (2012). Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred because…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Berry v. BrannerOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Gaston v. ParsonsOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  4. United States National Bank of Oregon v. DaviesOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Frohs v. GreeneOregon Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
  2. Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  4. Hammond v. HammondCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. Riverview Condominium Ass'n v. Cypress Ventures, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

17 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