Mitchem v. Rice
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that defendant had not been timely served. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the undisputed facts show that she did, in fact, timely serve defendant in accordance with all applicable rules. We conclude that the trial court was correct and affirm.
The relevant facts are undisputed. On May 7,1992, plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident involving defendant. On April 27, 1994, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for damages resulting from the injuries sustained in the 1992 accident. Plaintiff immediately…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Baker v. FoyOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Jones v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Duber v. ZeitlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
- Murphy v. PriceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Paschall v. CrispCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Mitchem v. RiceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Carlson v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- Gish v. YoungbloodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- Wright v. OsborneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.