Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Paynter
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 2006No. CC 03CV0551; CA A125029; SC S53276PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, C. J.
In this case, we consider whether a payment to an injured party tolled the statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed the action, because it concluded that the payment did not toll the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hamilton v. Paynter, 204 Or App 119, 129 P3d 203 (2006). We hold that the payment did toll the statute of limitations, and we therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court.
Because the trial court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint, we treat the allegations in the complaint as true. See Juarez v. Windsor Rock…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- South Beach Marina, Inc. v. Department of RevenueOregon Supreme Court · 1986
- Duncan v. DubinOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Juarez v. Windsor Rock Products, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2006
- Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. McNallyOregon Supreme Court · 2017
- Doe v. Medford School District 549CCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- Burke v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2012
- Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake OswegoOregon Supreme Court · 2016
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.