Legal Opinion

Ettner v. City of Medford

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 5, 1998No. 96-2123-L-3; CA A98376PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*437HASELTON, J.

Plaintiff appeals, assigning error to the allowance of summary judgment against her claims for employment discrimination, ORS chapter 659, which arise from her termination as a probationary firefighter with defendant City of Medford. The trial court determined that plaintiffs action was precluded because the exclusive means to challenge the alleged unlawful discharge was writ of review. ORS 34.102. We conclude that writ of review was not available and, thus, that it could not be “exclusive.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

In August 1994, plaintiff began working as a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Shockey v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Koch v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Koch v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  4. Decker v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Butchart v. Baker CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  2. Cloyd v. Lebanon School District 16CCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. Lincoln Loan Co. v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  4. Spivak v. MarriottCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  5. Ettner v. City of MedfordCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API