cognizable claim in Oregon

2020To state a cognizable claim that a deprivation of medical care is unconstitutional under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution and the Eighth Amendment 562 Durham v. Laney to the United States Constitution, plaintiff was required to allege facts showing that he “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81 , 916 P2d 291 (1996) (adopting, for pur- poses of Article I, section 16, the Eighth Amendment stan- d

2020To state a cognizable claim that a deprivation of medical care is unconstitutional under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution and the Eighth Amendment 562 Durham v. Laney to the United States Constitution, plaintiff was required to allege facts showing that he “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81 , 916 P2d 291 (1996) (adopting, for pur- poses of Article I, section 16, the Eighth Amendment stan- d

2020To state a cognizable claim that a deprivation of medical care is unconstitutional under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution and the Eighth Amendment 562 Durham v. Laney to the United States Constitution, plaintiff was required to allege facts showing that he “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81 , 916 P2d 291 (1996) (adopting, for pur- poses of Article I, section 16, the Eighth Amendment stan- d

2020To state a cognizable claim that a deprivation of medical care is unconstitutional under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution and the Eighth Amendment 562 Durham v. Laney to the United States Constitution, plaintiff was required to allege facts showing that he “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81 , 916 P2d 291 (1996) (adopting, for pur- poses of Article I, section 16, the Eighth Amendment stan- d

2017It is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim.’” Id. (quoting Sealey, 309 Or at 396 ).

2015It is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim.” 309 Or at 396 .

2006See Jensen, 334 Or at 422 (Article I, section 17, “is not a source of law that creates or retains a substantive claim or a theory of recovery in favor of any party”; instead, “[t]he right to pursue a ‘civil action,’ if it exists, must arise from some source other than Article I, section 17, because, that provision ‘is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim’ ” (quoting Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or 387, 396 , 788 P2d 435 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Smothers, 332 Or at 123 )).

2003“Article I, section 17, is not a source of law that creates or retains a substantive claim or a theory of recovery in favor of any party. * * * The right to pursue a ‘civil action,’ if it exists, must arise from some source other than Article I, section 17, because that provision ‘is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim.’ ” *110 Jensen, 334 Or at 422 (quoting Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or 387, 396 , 788 P2d 435 , cert den sub nom Sealey v. Toyota Motor Corp., 498 US 819 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Smothers, 332 Or at 123 ). 9 Put differently, Article

2014State v. Cavan, 185 Or App 367, 372-73 , 59 P3d 553 (2002).

2014State v. Cavan, 185 Or App 367, 372-73 , 59 P3d 553 (2002).

2006See, e.g., Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or. 562 , 770 P.2d 909 (1989) (alleged failure to provide adequate ventilation and circulation of clean air caused the petitioner to suffer clogged sinuses, severe headaches, dry and irritated skin, and a sore throat); Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or.App. 37, 41 , 806 P.2d 166 (1991) (prisoner's allegations that he was suffering from a mental illness and severe depression that had led to numerous suicide attempts and that he was being denied psychological care stated a cognizable claim because there was no other timely remedy available); Moore v. Peterson, 91 Or.

2006See, e.g., Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or. 562 , 770 P.2d 909 (1989) (alleged failure to provide adequate ventilation and circulation of clean air caused the petitioner to suffer clogged sinuses, severe headaches, dry and irritated skin, and a sore throat); Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or.App. 37, 41 , 806 P.2d 166 (1991) (prisoner's allegations that he was suffering from a mental illness and severe depression that had led to numerous suicide attempts and that he was being denied psychological care stated a cognizable claim because there was no other timely remedy available); Moore v. Peterson, 91 Or.

2026Under ORCP 21 A(1)(h), a counterclaim contained in a pleading must “state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 701 (2026) 703 a claim.” Here, defendants’ counterclaim as pleaded does not establish facts that constitute a cognizable claim under Oregon law and is similarly predicated on the existence of a valid lease agreement between defendants and plain- tiff.

2023Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562 , 570 & n 7, 770 P2d 909 (1989) (holding that the plaintiff’s allegation that the prison environment in which she was confined unnecessarily subjected her to serious health hazards stated a cognizable claim under Article I, section 13); Schafer v. Maass, 122 Or App 518, 522 , 858 P2d 738 Lawson v. Cain 474 (1993) (holding that the plaintiff’s allegation that he was being subjected to “ongoing and periodical” assaults by named defendants in the Intensive Management Unit at OSP stated a cognizable Article I, section 13, claim); State v. Freudenthaler, 84 Or App 53

2022And, given that dismissal cut off opportunities for petitioner to litigate, to Cite as 317 Or App 493 (2022) 497 explain, and to refine his claim, we conclude that the dis- missal was not harmless.

2020To state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief under both the Oregon and United States con- stitutions, “a prisoner must allege that [he or she] has a seri- ous medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliber- ately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81 , 916 P2d 291 (1996) 462 Easley v. Bowser (adopting the standard under the Eighth Amendment set forth in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US 97, 106 , 97 S Ct 285 , 50 L Ed 2d 251 (1976), reh’g den, 429 US 1066 , 97 S Ct 798 , 50 L

2020To state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief under both the Oregon and United States con- stitutions, “a prisoner must allege that [he or she] has a seri- ous medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliber- ately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81 , 916 P2d 291 (1996) 462 Easley v. Bowser (adopting the standard under the Eighth Amendment set forth in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US 97, 106 , 97 S Ct 285 , 50 L Ed 2d 251 (1976), reh’g den, 429 US 1066 , 97 S Ct 798 , 50 L

2018Petitioner then filed a pro se notice pursuant to Church v. Gladden , 244 Or. 308 , 417 P.2d 993 (1966), asking the court to hold a hearing "for the purpose of inquiring into appointed counsel's deficiency and refusal to introduce petitioner's claims/issues into the post-conviction court." In petitioner's " Church motion," he identified two issues: (1) the trial court impermissibly shackled him in front of the jury without a prior hearing to determine whether he should have been shackled, and (2) the trial court erroneously imposed an upward durational departure at sentencing.

2018Petitioner then filed a pro se notice pursuant to Church v. Gladden , 244 Or. 308 , 417 P.2d 993 (1966), asking the court to hold a hearing "for the purpose of inquiring into appointed counsel's deficiency and refusal to introduce petitioner's claims/issues into the post-conviction court." In petitioner's " Church motion," he identified two issues: (1) the trial court impermissibly shackled him in front of the jury without a prior hearing to determine whether he should have been shackled, and (2) the trial court erroneously imposed an upward durational departure at sentencing.

2017It is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim.’” Id. (quoting Sealey, 309 Or at 396 ).

2013For example, in Easton v. Hurita, 290 Or 689 , 625 P2d 1290 (1981), the court held that the plaintiff motorist’s complaint, challenging the lawfulness of his arrest and detention in a traffic infraction stop, stated a cognizable claim for relief in a civil action for false imprisonment.

2013For example, in Easton v. Hurita, 290 Or 689 , 625 P2d 1290 (1981), the court held that the plaintiff motorist’s complaint, challenging the lawfulness of his arrest and detention in a traffic infraction stop, stated a cognizable claim for relief in a civil action for false imprisonment.

2012Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281, 284 , 744 P2d 1289 (1987).

2012Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281, 284 , 744 P2d 1289 (1987).

2011In Christiansen , the plaintiff, who was the mother and conservator of the estate of her minor child, brought an action against a hospital and an obstetrician, alleging that they “failed to recognize signs of fetal distress and maternal infection during [the] plaintiffs labor * * * and, as a result, negligently delayed performing a cesarean section delivery of the child,” who suffered injuries. 210 Or App at 292 .

2009Id. at 110 .

2006See, e.g., Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562 , 770 P2d 909 (1989) (alleged failure to provide adequate ventilation and circulation of clean air caused the petitioner to suffer clogged sinuses, severe headaches, dry and irritated skin, and a sore throat); Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or App 37, 41 , 806 P2d 166 (1991) (prisoner’s allegations that he was suffering from a mental illness and severe depression that had led to numerous suicide attempts and that he was being denied psychological care stated a cognizable claim because there was no other timely remedy available); Moore v. Peterson, 91 Or App 616, 6

2006See, e.g., Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or. 562 , 770 P.2d 909 (1989) (alleged failure to provide adequate ventilation and circulation of clean air caused the petitioner to suffer clogged sinuses, severe headaches, dry and irritated skin, and a sore throat); Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or.App. 37, 41 , 806 P.2d 166 (1991) (prisoner's allegations that he was suffering from a mental illness and severe depression that had led to numerous suicide attempts and that he was being denied psychological care stated a cognizable claim because there was no other timely remedy available); Moore v. Peterson, 91 Or.

2005This court continued in Jensen , "The right to pursue a `civil action,' if it exists, must arise from some source other than Article I, section 17, because that provision is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also DeMendoza v. Huffman, 334 Or. 425, 447 , 51 P.3d 1232 (2002) (rejecting plaintiffs' argument that law requiring plaintiffs to split punitive damages with state violated Article I, section 17, on ground that plaintiffs had no underlying right to receive award reflecting jury's determination of punitive dama

2005This court continued in Jensen , “The right to pursue a ‘civil action,’ if it exists, must arise from some source other than Article I, section 17, because that provision is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also DeMendoza v. Huffman, 334 Or 425, 447 , 51 P3d 1232 (2002) (rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that law requiring plaintiffs to split punitive damages with state violated Article I, section 17, on ground that plaintiffs had no underlying right to receive award reflecting jury’s determination of punitive damage

2003“Article I, section 17, is not a source of law that creates or retains a substantive claim or a theory of recovery in favor of any party. * * * The right to pursue a ‘civil action,’ if it exists, must arise from some source other than Article I, section 17, because that provision ‘is not an independent guarantee of the existence of a cognizable claim.’ ” *110 Jensen, 334 Or at 422 (quoting Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or 387, 396 , 788 P2d 435 , cert den sub nom Sealey v. Toyota Motor Corp., 498 US 819 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Smothers, 332 Or at 123 ). 9 Put differently, Article

2001Id. at 220 , 924 P.2d 314 .

2001Id. at 220 , 924 P.2d 314 .

1981The cited cases, and others on which plaintiff relies, enunciate a policy of the federal courts that an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws is not a cognizable defense to a contract action brought by the alleged violator unless the specific act the plaintiff seeks to enforce is "the precise conduct made unlawful by the Act.” Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 US 516, 520 , 79 S Ct 429 , 3 L Ed 2d 475 , reh den 359 US 962 (1959).

1981The cited cases, and others on which plaintiff relies, enunciate a policy of the federal courts that an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws is not a cognizable defense to a contract action brought by the alleged violator unless the specific act the plaintiff seeks to enforce is "the precise conduct made unlawful by the Act.” Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 US 516, 520 , 79 S Ct 429 , 3 L Ed 2d 475 , reh den 359 US 962 (1959).