Legal Opinion

Hotelling v. Walther

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1944PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

This is an action for malpractice. The plaintiff has appealed from an adverse judgment based on the verdict of a jury, which found in effect that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. There had been a previous trial, which resulted in a judgment of involuntary nonsuit on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. The court below set aside that judgment and granted a new trial, and on appeal to this court its action was sustained. We held that the tort alleged was a continuing one and that “the statute runs from the last date of the continuous negligent treatment”: 169…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hotelling v. WaltherOregon Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Kuhnhausen v. StadelmanOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  3. State v. ChaseOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Williams v. RaganOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Fitze v. American-Hawaiian Steamship Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1941

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State v. GornickOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State of Oregon v. NodineOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  3. State v. PayneOregon Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Dowell v. MossbergOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Beglau v. AlbertusOregon Supreme Court · 1975

19 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