Dauven v. St. Vincent Hospital & Medical Center
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtWarren, P. J.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint for failure to commence the action within the statute of hmitations. ORCP 21A(9). We reverse in part and affirm in part.
In reviewing the granting of a motion to dismiss, we assume the truth of all allegations, as well as any inferences that may be drawn, and view them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Oksenholt v. Lederle Laboratories, 294 Or 213, 215, 656 P2d 293 (1982); Machunze v. Chemeketa Community College, 106 Or App 707, 712, 810 P2d 406, rev den 312 Or 16 (1991). Our review of a motion to dismiss based on…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Securities-Intermountain, Inc. v. Sunset Fuel Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
- Oksenholt v. LEDERLE LABORATORIES, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
- MacHunze v. Chemeketa Community CollegeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- O'Gara v. KaufmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- Erickson Hardwood Co. v. North Pacific Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kelly v. LessnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- Ramirez v. LembckeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Dauven v. St. Vincent Hospital & Medical CenterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996