Moore v. Ball, Janik & Novack
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the Court
*468DURHAM, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment for defendants in this legal malpractice action. The basis for the trial court’s ruling was that the action is barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations. ORS 12.110. However, plaintiff contends that he filed a new complaint within one year after the dismissal of a timely earlier complaint stating the same claim and, therefore, that the limitation period was extended by ORS 12.220. We reverse and remand.
We take the facts as stated in plaintiffs brief and as accepted by defendants:
“Plaintiff claims that defendants, a Portland law firm,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hatley v. Truck Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1972
- Hatley v. Truck Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1972
- Fiedler v. BowlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- WOLFE INVESTMENTS, INC. v. ShroyerOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation — Family of Uri, Inc. v. VaughanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lambert v. American Dream Homes Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- Mayer v. SalwayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- Lambert v. American Dream Homes Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Moore v. Ball, Janik & NovackCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.