Legal Opinion

Belinskey v. Clooten

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 18, 2007No. CV04060296; A130651PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing her complaint as a sanction for violating a discovery order -under ORCP 46 B(2)(c). Plaintiff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint and that, in any event, the trial court’s findings do not justify its decision or explain why a less onerous sanction was inappropriate. Plaintiff also argues that the trial court lacked the authority to order her to pay $2,500 in “cancellation fees” for failing to appear for medical examinations scheduled by defendant. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Plaintiff was injured in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Hovey v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. Hammond Packing Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
  4. United States v. DowSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Mattiza v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Barnett v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
  2. Belinskey v. ClootenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  3. Barnett v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API