Budden v. Dykstra
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, P. J.
The principal issue in this breach of contract case is whether the trial court erred in dismissing defendants’ unconscionability defense as a sanction for failure to comply with orders compelling discovery. According to defendants, the trial court failed to make appropriate findings and to consider less drastic sanctions and, in any event, the sanction was unduly harsh. Plaintiff contends that defendants did not preserve their objections as to the lack of findings and that, on the merits, the trial court made adequate findings to support a reasonable sanction under the circumstances. We agree…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pamplin v. VictoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Carter v. United States National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- R & C. RANCH, LLC v. KundeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- SAIF Corp. v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- Weber v. MahlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
3Cited by8 opinions
- Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Peeples v. LampertCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- Asato v. DunnCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- Miner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
- Miner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.