Legal Opinion

Hoyt v. Paulos

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1990No. TC 86-1204C; CA A44851; SC S36175PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFadeley, J.

The issue in this case involves timeliness, for statute of limitation purposes, of service of summons and complaint on a defendant through service on the Motor Vehicles Division. Do the ORCP provisions concerning mailing of a copy of summons to a defendant’s insurer amend or override ORS 12.020, the statutory definition of when an action is deemed commenced for statute of limitations purposes? Does ORCP 7 D(2)(d), 1 which requires that service of summons be by certified or registered mail, apply to mailing of a copy of a summons and complaint to a defendant’s insurer under ORCP 7 D(4)(a)? 2…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Harp v. LouxCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  3. Hoyt v. PaulosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  2. Campos v. ChisholmCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. Heritage Properties v. Wells Fargo BankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  4. Gish v. YoungbloodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  5. Hall v. WalrathCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

3 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