Ramsey factors in Oregon

2021Sanford, in turn, followed a test originally articulated in Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145 , 986 P2d 54 (1999), rev den, 329 Or 589 (2000), where the Court of Appeals identified four factors that should be considered in applying ORCP 23 A.9 Kim argues that the Ramsey test is inconsistent with our recent deci- sion in C.O.

2021Sanford, in turn, followed a test originally articulated in Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145 , 986 P2d 54 (1999), rev den, 329 Or 589 (2000), where the Court of Appeals identified four factors that should be considered in applying ORCP 23 A.9 Kim argues that the Ramsey test is inconsistent with our recent deci- sion in C.O.

2020Day v. Day, 299 Or App 460, 478 , 450 P3d 1 (2019) (rejecting an argument that the trial court necessarily abused its dis- cretion in denying leave to amend if three of the four Ramsey factors favored granting leave to amend, because we do not “mechanically count” Ramsey factors to determine whether the court abused its discretion).

2020Day v. Day, 299 Or App 460, 478 , 450 P3d 1 (2019) (rejecting an argument that the trial court necessarily abused its dis- cretion in denying leave to amend if three of the four Ramsey factors favored granting leave to amend, because we do not “mechanically count” Ramsey factors to determine whether the court abused its discretion).

2022After argument in this case, the Supreme Court decided Eklof, 369 Or 531 , in which it held that the Ramsey factors do not properly direct a court’s exercise of its discre- tion.

2022After argument in this case, the Supreme Court decided Eklof, 369 Or 531 , in which it held that the Ramsey factors do not properly direct a court’s exercise of its discre- tion.

2021In Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle, 368 Or 274, 301 , 491 P3d 60 (2021), one of the defendants advanced that contention, but the court ultimately concluded that it “need not determine whether the various Ramsey factors or the Ramsey test itself conflict with C.O.

2021In Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle, 368 Or 274, 301 , 491 P3d 60 (2021), one of the defendants advanced that contention, but the court ultimately concluded that it “need not determine whether the various Ramsey factors or the Ramsey test itself conflict with C.O.

2019Furthermore, because, in plaintiff’s view, defendant’s preju- dice argument is foreclosed by our case law, and, on appeal, defendant presents only a limited challenge to the merits of her proposed amendments, plaintiff argues that three of the four Ramsey factors either support the proposed amendment 10 According to plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, the new “Doe” defen- dants were tenants with whom defendant had entered into a residential lease agreement in violation of plaintiff’s possessory rights in the property. 478 Day v. Day or are neutral.11 And, citing Caldeen Const., LLC v. Kemp

2019Furthermore, because, in plaintiff’s view, defendant’s preju- dice argument is foreclosed by our case law, and, on appeal, defendant presents only a limited challenge to the merits of her proposed amendments, plaintiff argues that three of the four Ramsey factors either support the proposed amendment 10 According to plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, the new “Doe” defen- dants were tenants with whom defendant had entered into a residential lease agreement in violation of plaintiff’s possessory rights in the property. 478 Day v. Day or are neutral.11 And, citing Caldeen Const., LLC v. Kemp

2019Cite as 300 Or App 414 (2019) 421 “(1) The proposed amendment’s nature and its relationship to the existing pleadings; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the timing of the proposed amendment; and (4) the colorable merits of the proposed amendment.” Id.6 The court then addressed those considerations.

2019Quoting from Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 43 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009), the court listed the four, nonexclusive “Ramsey factors” that we have held to be considerations relevant to a trial court’s exercise of discretion in deciding whether to grant leave to amend: 5 Plaintiffs also sought to “make more explicit allegations of attorney fee entitlement” through their proposed amendments.

2019Quoting from Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 43 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009), the court listed the four, nonexclusive “Ramsey factors” that we have held to be considerations relevant to a trial court’s exercise of discretion in deciding whether to grant leave to amend: 5 Plaintiffs also sought to “make more explicit allegations of attorney fee entitlement” through their proposed amendments.

2019Quoting from Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 43 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009), the court listed the four, nonexclusive “Ramsey factors” that we have held to be considerations relevant to a trial court’s exercise of discretion in deciding whether to grant leave to amend: 5 Plaintiffs also sought to “make more explicit allegations of attorney fee entitlement” through their proposed amendments.

2012That the court did not exercise its discretion “in furtherance of justice” is evident when we “examine the procedural moves prior to the trial court’s judgment for defendant.” Speciale, 38 Or App at 444-45 .

2012That the court did not exercise its discretion “in furtherance of justice” is evident when we “examine the procedural moves prior to the trial court’s judgment for defendant.” Speciale, 38 Or App at 444-45 .

2007Affirmed on appeal; reversed on cross-appeal. 1 Boise added the “physical occupation” claim after remand. 2 See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 , 102 S Ct 3164 , 73 L Ed 2d 868 (1982) (describing taking by physical occupation). 3 The administrative rule under which the state had denied Boise’s harvesting plan allowed an exception to the requirement for protecting northern spotted owl nesting sites if the landowner had obtained an ITP pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. 4 The Lucas Court cited Loretto for the first proposition, and Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 2

2007Affirmed on appeal; reversed on cross-appeal. 1 Boise added the “physical occupation” claim after remand. 2 See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 , 102 S Ct 3164 , 73 L Ed 2d 868 (1982) (describing taking by physical occupation). 3 The administrative rule under which the state had denied Boise’s harvesting plan allowed an exception to the requirement for protecting northern spotted owl nesting sites if the landowner had obtained an ITP pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. 4 The Lucas Court cited Loretto for the first proposition, and Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 2

2007Affirmed on appeal; reversed on cross-appeal. 1 Boise added the “physical occupation” claim after remand. 2 See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 , 102 S Ct 3164 , 73 L Ed 2d 868 (1982) (describing taking by physical occupation). 3 The administrative rule under which the state had denied Boise’s harvesting plan allowed an exception to the requirement for protecting northern spotted owl nesting sites if the landowner had obtained an ITP pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. 4 The Lucas Court cited Loretto for the first proposition, and Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 2

2007Affirmed on appeal; reversed on cross-appeal. 1 Boise added the “physical occupation” claim after remand. 2 See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 , 102 S Ct 3164 , 73 L Ed 2d 868 (1982) (describing taking by physical occupation). 3 The administrative rule under which the state had denied Boise’s harvesting plan allowed an exception to the requirement for protecting northern spotted owl nesting sites if the landowner had obtained an ITP pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. 4 The Lucas Court cited Loretto for the first proposition, and Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 2