Legal Opinion

Hoddenpyl v. Fiskum

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 14, 2016No. 14CV11259; A158855PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSercombe, P. J.

In this personal injury case, following a default order and entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant moved to set aside the judgment under ORCP 71 B(l) on the grounds of excusable neglect. Prior to the default, defendant’s attorney attempted to respond to the complaint by sending plaintiff’s attorney a letter stating an intent to file an appearance under ORCP 69 B, but the letter was sent to the wrong address. The trial court determined that marking the letter with the wrong destination was not excusable neglect and denied defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment. As explained…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gaona v. BLACKETTEROregon Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Morrell v. County of LaneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  3. Terlyuk v. KrasnogorovCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  4. Mary Ebel Johnson, P.C. v. ElmoreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  5. Johnson v. Sunriver Resort Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Reeves v. PlettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. City of Eugene v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  3. City of Eugene v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  4. City of Eugene v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  5. Hellman v. TuckerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2026

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API