Legal Opinion

Conant v. Stroup

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 14, 2002No. 98CV0489ST; A112020PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, P. J.

Plaintiff initiated this action for negligence arising out of injuries that she suffered while jogging on defendants’ property. The trial court entered a directed verdict on the ground that defendants are immune under ORS 105.682, which provides that private landowners are immune from liability for personal injuries that arise out of the use of their land for recreational purposes when the owner permits any member of the public to use the land for those purposes. Plaintiff appeals, assigning error both to the directed verdict and to the denial of her motion to amend. We affirm.

Defendants own…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Almgren v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical CenterIllinois Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Shockey v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  4. LePoidevin Ex Rel. Dye v. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Collins v. MartellaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Estate of Gordon-Couture v. BrownSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
  2. Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
  3. Martinez v. RossCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  4. Landis v. LimbaughCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  5. Liberty v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

12 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