adjudication claim in Oregon

2019This use of 'standing' should be avoided because it easily confuses the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim for relief with the right to obtain the relief itself." Id. at 383-84 , 760 P.2d 846 ; see also MAN Aktiengesellschaft v. DaimlerChrysler AG , 218 Or.

2019This use of 'standing' should be avoided because it easily confuses the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim for relief with the right to obtain the relief itself." Id. at 383-84 , 760 P.2d 846 ; see also MAN Aktiengesellschaft v. DaimlerChrysler AG , 218 Or.

1993Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging gross negligence, and the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim with prejudice. 2 ORCP 21A provides, in part: “[Tjhe following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: * * * (8) failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim[.]” 3 A claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings must allege: “(1) The commencement and prosecution by the defendant of a judicial proceeding against the plaintiff; “(2) The termination of the proceeding in the plaintiffs favor; “(3) The absence of proba

1993Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging gross negligence, and the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim with prejudice. 2 ORCP 21A provides, in part: “[Tjhe following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: * * * (8) failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim[.]” 3 A claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings must allege: “(1) The commencement and prosecution by the defendant of a judicial proceeding against the plaintiff; “(2) The termination of the proceeding in the plaintiffs favor; “(3) The absence of proba

2024As to the fourth element, to establish the existence of malice, plain- tiff would need to prove “the existence of a primary purpose other than that of securing an adjudication of the claim.” Id. at 219 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2015SPS of Oregon, Inc. v. GDH, LLC, 258 Or App 210, 218 , 309 P3d 178 (2013); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 237-38 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005).

2022Put simply, SB 562 concerned “[t]he provisions of the juvenile code relating to preadjudicative detention, namely holding a child in detention before a hearing on a petition.” Staff Measure Summary, House Committee on Judiciary, SB 562, May 26, 1989 (emphasis added); see also Brownstone Cite as 318 Or App 21 (2022) 35 Homes Condo.

2019This use of 'standing' should be avoided because it easily confuses the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim for relief with the right to obtain the relief itself." Id. at 383-84 , 760 P.2d 846 ; see also MAN Aktiengesellschaft v. DaimlerChrysler AG , 218 Or.

2019App. 117 , 121, 179 P.3d 675 (2008) ("The decisive issue for standing * * * is not whether a party's claims are correct but whether the party may obtain a judicial determination of their correctness.").

2016See, e.g., Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 US 437 , 112 S Ct 789 , 117 L Ed 2d 1 (1992) (in Commerce Clause challenge brought by the State of Wyoming against Oklahoma’s statute requiring coal burning utilities to use 10 percent Oklahoma coal, Wyoming was found to have standing based on an injury in fact — falling tax revenues from coal sales — without any consideration of whether that tax effect was within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause). 7 See Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or 3, 8-9 , 588 P2d 1281 (1970) (without demonstrating how agreement affected tax liability,

2016See, e.g., Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 US 437 , 112 S Ct 789 , 117 L Ed 2d 1 (1992) (in Commerce Clause challenge brought by the State of Wyoming against Oklahoma’s statute requiring coal burning utilities to use 10 percent Oklahoma coal, Wyoming was found to have standing based on an injury in fact — falling tax revenues from coal sales — without any consideration of whether that tax effect was within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause). 7 See Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or 3, 8-9 , 588 P2d 1281 (1970) (without demonstrating how agreement affected tax liability,

2016See, e.g., Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 US 437 , 112 S Ct 789 , 117 L Ed 2d 1 (1992) (in Commerce Clause challenge brought by the State of Wyoming against Oklahoma’s statute requiring coal burning utilities to use 10 percent Oklahoma coal, Wyoming was found to have standing based on an injury in fact — falling tax revenues from coal sales — without any consideration of whether that tax effect was within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause). 7 See Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or 3, 8-9 , 588 P2d 1281 (1970) (without demonstrating how agreement affected tax liability,

2016See, e.g., Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 US 437 , 112 S Ct 789 , 117 L Ed 2d 1 (1992) (in Commerce Clause challenge brought by the State of Wyoming against Oklahoma’s statute requiring coal burning utilities to use 10 percent Oklahoma coal, Wyoming was found to have standing based on an injury in fact — falling tax revenues from coal sales — without any consideration of whether that tax effect was within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause). 7 See Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or 3, 8-9 , 588 P2d 1281 (1970) (without demonstrating how agreement affected tax liability,

2016See Eckles, 306 Or at 383-84 (explaining that this court uses the term “standing” to refer to the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim and that standing is logically considered prior to consideration of the merits of a claim). 5 See, e.g., Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 527 US _ , 134 S Ct 1377, 1388-89 , 188 L Ed 2d 392 (2014) (describing “zone of interest” test as generally applicable tool for determining who may invoke a statutory cause of action); Five Corners Family Farmers v. State of Washington, 173 Wash 2d 296, 302-03, 268 P3d 892 (2011) (“In orde

2016See Eckles, 306 Or at 383-84 (explaining that this court uses the term “standing” to refer to the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim and that standing is logically considered prior to consideration of the merits of a claim). 5 See, e.g., Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 527 US _ , 134 S Ct 1377, 1388-89 , 188 L Ed 2d 392 (2014) (describing “zone of interest” test as generally applicable tool for determining who may invoke a statutory cause of action); Five Corners Family Farmers v. State of Washington, 173 Wash 2d 296, 302-03, 268 P3d 892 (2011) (“In orde

2016See Eckles, 306 Or at 383-84 (explaining that this court uses the term “standing” to refer to the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim and that standing is logically considered prior to consideration of the merits of a claim). 5 See, e.g., Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 527 US _ , 134 S Ct 1377, 1388-89 , 188 L Ed 2d 392 (2014) (describing “zone of interest” test as generally applicable tool for determining who may invoke a statutory cause of action); Five Corners Family Farmers v. State of Washington, 173 Wash 2d 296, 302-03, 268 P3d 892 (2011) (“In orde

2016See Eckles, 306 Or at 383-84 (explaining that this court uses the term “standing” to refer to the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim and that standing is logically considered prior to consideration of the merits of a claim). 5 See, e.g., Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 527 US _ , 134 S Ct 1377, 1388-89 , 188 L Ed 2d 392 (2014) (describing “zone of interest” test as generally applicable tool for determining who may invoke a statutory cause of action); Five Corners Family Farmers v. State of Washington, 173 Wash 2d 296, 302-03, 268 P3d 892 (2011) (“In orde

2016See Eckles, 306 Or at 383-84 (explaining that this court uses the term “standing” to refer to the right to obtain an adjudication of a claim and that standing is logically considered prior to consideration of the merits of a claim). 5 See, e.g., Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 527 US _ , 134 S Ct 1377, 1388-89 , 188 L Ed 2d 392 (2014) (describing “zone of interest” test as generally applicable tool for determining who may invoke a statutory cause of action); Five Corners Family Farmers v. State of Washington, 173 Wash 2d 296, 302-03, 268 P3d 892 (2011) (“In orde

2013In turn, “malice,” in the context of a wrongful-initiation claim, is “the existence of a primary purpose other than that of securing an adjudication of the claim.” Erlandson v. Pullen, 45 Or App 467, 477 , 608 P2d 1169 (1980).

2013In turn, “malice,” in the context of a wrongful-initiation claim, is “the existence of a primary purpose other than that of securing an adjudication of the claim.” Erlandson v. Pullen, 45 Or App 467, 477 , 608 P2d 1169 (1980).

2004Under Oregon law, the elements of a claim for wrongful initiation of a civil proceeding are as follows: “(1) The commencement and prosecution by the defendant of a judicial proceeding against the plaintiff; *238 “(2) The termination of the proceeding in the plaintiffs favor;[ 11 ] “(3) The absence of probable cause to prosecute the action; “(4) The existence of malice, or as is sometimes stated, the existence of a primary purpose other than that of securing an adjudication of the claim; and “(5) Damages.” Alvarez v. Retail Credit Ass’n, 234 Or 255, 259-60 , 381 P2d 499 (1963); see also Perry v

2004Under Oregon law, the elements of a claim for wrongful initiation of a civil proceeding are as follows: “(1) The commencement and prosecution by the defendant of a judicial proceeding against the plaintiff; *238 “(2) The termination of the proceeding in the plaintiffs favor;[ 11 ] “(3) The absence of probable cause to prosecute the action; “(4) The existence of malice, or as is sometimes stated, the existence of a primary purpose other than that of securing an adjudication of the claim; and “(5) Damages.” Alvarez v. Retail Credit Ass’n, 234 Or 255, 259-60 , 381 P2d 499 (1963); see also Perry v

2002See, e.g., Rose, 277 Or at 798-99 (applying a previous version of the Restatement of Torts in analyzing a malicious prosecution action); Wroten, 114 Or App at 309 (applying Restatement (Second) of Torts, including comments, to an action for wrongfiil initiation of a civil proceeding). 7 Specifically, if Oklahoma law applies, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Robertson.

2000Accord Vasquez v. Reeves, 138 Or App 153, 156 , 907 P2d 254 (1995); Parks v. Willis, 121 Or App 72 , 74 n 3, 853 P2d 1336 (1993).

2000Accord Vasquez v. Reeves, 138 Or App 153, 156 , 907 P2d 254 (1995); Parks v. Willis, 121 Or App 72 , 74 n 3, 853 P2d 1336 (1993).

1992See Lambert v. Sears, Roebuck, 280 Or 123, 134 , 570 P2d 357 (1977); Restatement (Second) Torts § 676, comment c (1977).

1992See Lambert v. Sears, Roebuck, 280 Or 123, 134 , 570 P2d 357 (1977); Restatement (Second) Torts § 676, comment c (1977).