Legal Opinion
Slogowski v. Lyness
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 1996No. CC 90C12373; CA A79627; SC S41955PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCarson, C. J.
In this negligence action, we must decide whether plaintiff has stated a claim against defendant Pacificorp (defendant). The trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant, pursuant to ORCP 21B. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Slogowski v. Lyness, 131 Or App 213, 884 P2d 566 (1994). We reverse.
“[W]hen the pleadings, taken together, affirmatively show that the plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief,” a motion for a judgment on the pleadings should be granted. Hawkins v. Conklin, 307 Or 262, 264, 768 P2d 66 (1988). We note, however, that motions for judgments on the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Donaca v. Curry CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Solberg v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- Dahl v. Bayerische Motoren WerkeOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Scott & Payne v. Potomac Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Iglehart v. Board of County Commissioners of Rogers CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
- Smith v. Washington CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Williams v. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIONCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
- Boyer v. Salomon Smith BarneyOregon Supreme Court · 2008
- Harris v. SunigaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.