Legal Opinion
Ryerse v. Haddock
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided August 12, 2004No. CCV 98-04-401, CCV 98-02-480; CA A107447; SC S50180PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRiggs, J.
In this case, we decide when a trial court “deter-minéis]” a motion to set aside a judgment and for a new trial pursuant to ORCP 64 F (1997). 1 The Court of Appeals concluded that, in the present case, the trial court did not “determine [ ]” the motion until the clerk entered the trial court’s order in the register, and so the motion was deemed denied. Ryerse v. Haddock, 185 Or App 679, 60 P3d 1107 (2003). We allowed review and, for the following reasons, affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts relevant to our decision are as follows. Ryerse and Haddock were involved in an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Kay v. David Douglas School District No. 40Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Stupek v. Wyle Laboratories Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1998
- In Re Marriage of WeberOregon Supreme Court · 2004
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- Garcia v. Oregon Department of Motor VehiclesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- McCollum v. KMART CORP.Oregon Supreme Court · 2010
- Burden v. Copco Refrigeration, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2005
- Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. ServicesOregon Supreme Court · 2022
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.