Legal Opinion

Luyet v. Ehrnfelt

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 17, 1993No. C901281CV; CA A73372PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment after a trial to the court on defendant’s affirmative defense that he was not served within the statute of limitations. The court held that the service of summons on defendant was inadequate under ORCP 7D. We reverse.

It is undisputed that, on December 17, 1990, five days before the applicable statute of limitations was to run, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant negligently caused an automobile accident. On January 23,1991, she left a copy of the summons and complaint with a nonresident friend of defendant who was working at defendant’s home.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Baker v. FoyOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Lake Oswego Review, Inc. v. SteinkampOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Jordan v. WiserOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Campos v. ChisholmCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  5. Korgan v. GantenbeinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Murphy v. PriceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  2. Boyd v. BoydCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  3. Paschall v. CrispCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  4. Abbotts v. BaconCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  5. Mitchem v. RiceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

5 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