Legal Opinion

Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 10, 2014No. 1110128; A151821PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevore, J.

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants for damages arising out of alleged defects in the construction of their home. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that, in the absence of a discovery rule, plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.080(3), which governs actions for “interference with or injury to any interest of another in real property[.]” Plaintiffs appeal the resulting judgment and argue that ORS 12.080(3) includes a discovery rule. Defendants disagree and, in the alternative, contend that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Berry v. BrannerOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Greene v. Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Care CenterOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Rice v. RabbOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Beveridge v. KingOregon Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Hammond v. HammondCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  3. Romero v. AmburnCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  4. Willms v. AmeriTitle, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  5. State v. RitchieCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

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