legally sufficient claim in Oregon

2026When we review a court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition as meritless, we view “ ‘the allegations in the petition and related inferences in the light most favorable to [the] plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.’ ” Rankin v. Landers, 317 Or App 493, 494 , 505 P3d 497 (2022) (quoting Rivas v. Persson, 256 Or App 829, 830 , 304 P3d 765 (2013)).

2026When we review a court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition as meritless, we view “ ‘the allegations in the petition and related inferences in the light most favorable to [the] plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.’ ” Rankin v. Landers, 317 Or App 493, 494 , 505 P3d 497 (2022) (quoting Rivas v. Persson, 256 Or App 829, 830 , 304 P3d 765 (2013)).

2026When we review a court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition as meritless, we view “ ‘the allegations in the petition and related inferences in the light most favorable to [the] plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.’ ” Rankin v. Landers, 317 Or App 493, 494 , 505 P3d 497 (2022) (quoting Rivas v. Persson, 256 Or App 829, 830 , 304 P3d 765 (2013)).

2026When we review a court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition as meritless, we view “ ‘the allegations in the petition and related inferences in the light most favorable to [the] plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.’ ” Rankin v. Landers, 317 Or App 493, 494 , 505 P3d 497 (2022) (quoting Rivas v. Persson, 256 Or App 829, 830 , 304 P3d 765 (2013)).

2023Barrett, 247 Or App at 311 .1 In our review of the denial of the habeas petition, we view the alle- gations and related inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.

2023Barrett, 247 Or App at 311 .1 In our review of the denial of the habeas petition, we view the alle- gations and related inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.

2006Subsection (6) provides that "[t]he court may on its own motion enter a judgment denying a meritless petition brought under ORS 34.310 to 34.370." Subsection (7) defines a "meritless petition" as "one which, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted." Thus, a trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reviewed *1068 to determine whether, "when viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the pleadings and related inferences allege a legally sufficient claim." Billings v. Gates, 133 Or.App. 236, 240-41 , 890 P.2d

2006Subsection (6) provides that "[t]he court may on its own motion enter a judgment denying a meritless petition brought under ORS 34.310 to 34.370." Subsection (7) defines a "meritless petition" as "one which, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted." Thus, a trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reviewed *1068 to determine whether, "when viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the pleadings and related inferences allege a legally sufficient claim." Billings v. Gates, 133 Or.App. 236, 240-41 , 890 P.2d

2006Subsection (6) provides that "[t]he court may on its own motion enter a judgment denying a meritless petition brought under ORS 34.310 to 34.370." Subsection (7) defines a "meritless petition" as "one which, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted." Thus, a trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reviewed *1068 to determine whether, "when viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the pleadings and related inferences allege a legally sufficient claim." Billings v. Gates, 133 Or.App. 236, 240-41 , 890 P.2d

2006Subsection (6) provides that "[t]he court may on its own motion enter a judgment denying a meritless petition brought under ORS 34.310 to 34.370." Subsection (7) defines a "meritless petition" as "one which, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted." Thus, a trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reviewed *1068 to determine whether, "when viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the pleadings and related inferences allege a legally sufficient claim." Billings v. Gates, 133 Or.App. 236, 240-41 , 890 P.2d

2022We review a trial court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition as meritless under ORCP 21 A(8), Jones v. Armenakis, 144 Or App 23, 26 , 925 P2d 130 (1996), taking “the allegations in the petition and related inferences in the light most favor- able to [the] plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.” Rivas v. Persson, 256 Or App 829, 830 , 304 P3d 765 (2013).

2022We review a trial court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition as meritless under ORCP 21 A(8), Jones v. Armenakis, 144 Or App 23, 26 , 925 P2d 130 (1996), taking “the allegations in the petition and related inferences in the light most favor- able to [the] plaintiff to determine whether the petition alleges a legally sufficient claim.” Rivas v. Persson, 256 Or App 829, 830 , 304 P3d 765 (2013).

2010Thus, as the Supreme Court reemphasized in Lowe II, to state a legally sufficient claim for negligence, plaintiffs must, at the least, identify a duty that defendant owed them — beyond the common-law duty to exercise reasonable care — to guard against that economic harm. 344 Or at 413-14 ; see also Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281, 284 , 744 P2d 1289 (1987) (“It does not suffice that the harm is a foreseeable consequence of negligent conduct that may make one liable to someone else, for instance to a client.

2004In some situations, a party may be able to rely on either a contract theory or a tort theory or both.” 6 In Metropolitan Property & Casualty, we held that, where the plaintiffs complaint alleged a specific contractual obligation that was coextensive with the defendant’s general standard of care to complete construction in a “timely and workmanlike manner,” the plaintiff had stated a legally sufficient claim for breach of contract. “ [(Contracting parties are entitled to enforce commitments to perform contractual obligations in accordance with a general standard of care.” 168 Or App at 369 . 7

2003See generally Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 327 Or 9 , 956 P2d 960 (1998);Rustvold v. Taylor, 171 Or App 128 , 14 P3d 675 (2000), rev withdrawn, 332 Or 305 (2001). 3 Plaintiff responded by acknowledging that, under Horwell , she could not recover emotional distress damages for “the loss of her baby.” She argued, however, that she had adequately pleaded a distinct claim for her own suffering and emotional distress, based on the alternative theories that she was a direct victim of defendants’ professional negligence or that she had suffered a physical impact as a result of that negligence s

2003See generally Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 327 Or 9 , 956 P2d 960 (1998);Rustvold v. Taylor, 171 Or App 128 , 14 P3d 675 (2000), rev withdrawn, 332 Or 305 (2001). 3 Plaintiff responded by acknowledging that, under Horwell , she could not recover emotional distress damages for “the loss of her baby.” She argued, however, that she had adequately pleaded a distinct claim for her own suffering and emotional distress, based on the alternative theories that she was a direct victim of defendants’ professional negligence or that she had suffered a physical impact as a result of that negligence s