Legal Opinion
Moser v. Mark
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided October 15, 2008No. 062389; A135631PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s grant of defendants’ ORCP 21 A(8) motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim. Plaintiff brought this pro se negligence action against Dr. Susan Mark and her employer, Legacy Clinic LLC, for damages alleged to have arisen from Mark’s failure to properly treat and diagnose plaintiffs lower back condition. We review a trial court’s ruling under ORCP 21 A(8), based solely on the allegations in the complaint. Beck v. City of Portland, 202 Or App 360, 364, 122 P3d 131 (2005). In…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Zehr v. HaugenOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Wintersteen v. SemlerOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Horn v. National Hospital AssociationOregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Hansen v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Meyer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
- Son v. Ashland Community Healthcare ServicesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- Barrett v. PetersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
- Barrett v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.