Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLPgreen2 sentences2024In contrast, to mit- igate “that somewhat unpredictable approach to the time that a party will have to initiate an action,” Marshall II, 371 Or at 539, statutes of repose set “maximum times to file a claim, regardless of the date of discovery of an injury or other circumstances that may affect the expiration of a statute of limitation[ ],” Shasta, 329 Or at 162 . 2024In contrast, to mit- igate “that somewhat unpredictable approach to the time that a party will have to initiate an action,” Marshall II, 371 Or at 539, statutes of repose set “maximum times to file a claim, regardless of the date of discovery of an injury or other circumstances that may affect the expiration of a statute of limitation[ ],” Shasta, 329 Or at 162 . | 2 | 2 |
Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLCgreen2 sentences2026See Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 334 Or App 751, 754-55 , 557 P3d 190 (2024) (statutes of limitations “limit the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued,” whereas statutes of repose “set maximum times to file a claim, regardless of the date of discovery of an injury or other circumstances that may affect the expiration of a statute of limitation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2026See Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 334 Or App 751, 754-55 , 557 P3d 190 (2024) (statutes of limitations “limit the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued,” whereas statutes of repose “set maximum times to file a claim, regardless of the date of discovery of an injury or other circumstances that may affect the expiration of a statute of limitation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Kennedygreen2 sentences1999Statutes of limitations "limit[ ] the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued." Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or. 387 , 394 n. 7, 788 P.2d 435 (1990); see also Baker v. Kennedy, 317 Or. 372, 376 , 856 P.2d 314 (1993) ("Statutes of limitation refer to commencement of legal actions.") (emphasis in original). 1999Statutes of limitations "limit[ ] the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued." Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or. 387 , 394 n. 7, 788 P.2d 435 (1990); see also Baker v. Kennedy, 317 Or. 372, 376 , 856 P.2d 314 (1993) ("Statutes of limitation refer to commencement of legal actions.") (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shasta View Irrigation District v. Amoco Chemicals Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Statutes of limitation “limit the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued,” meaning, a statute of limitation generally “does not begin *755 to run until the injured party knows or should know that it has been injured.” Shasta View Irrigation Dist. v. Amoco Chemicals, 329 Or 151, 161 , 986 P2d 536 (1999) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 2024Statutes of limitation “limit the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued,” meaning, a statute of limitation generally “does not begin *755 to run until the injured party knows or should know that it has been injured.” Shasta View Irrigation Dist. v. Amoco Chemicals, 329 Or 151, 161 , 986 P2d 536 (1999) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). | 6 | 2011–2024 |
Sealey v. Hicks
red
2 sentences1999Statutes of limitations "limit[ ] the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued." Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or. 387 , 394 n. 7, 788 P.2d 435 (1990); see also Baker v. Kennedy, 317 Or. 372, 376 , 856 P.2d 314 (1993) ("Statutes of limitation refer to commencement of legal actions.") (emphasis in original). 1999Statutes of limitations "limit[ ] the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued." Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or. 387 , 394 n. 7, 788 P.2d 435 (1990); see also Baker v. Kennedy, 317 Or. 372, 376 , 856 P.2d 314 (1993) ("Statutes of limitation refer to commencement of legal actions.") (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Johnson v. Star MacHinery Company
green
2 sentences1990A "statute of ultimate repose," on the other hand, provides a deadline for the initiation of an action whether or not the injury has been discovered or has even occurred. [8] In fact, prior to the enactment of ORS 30.905(1) we held in Johnson v. Star Machinery Co., 270 Or. 694 , 530 P.2d 53 (1974), that the general torts statute of repose, ORS 12.115(1), also applied to strict product liability actions. [9] Prior to the enactment of ORS 30.905, this plaintiff would have been barred by the general ten-year ultimate statute of repose, ORS 12.115(1), which we applied to product liability actions 1990A "statute of ultimate repose," on the other hand, provides a deadline for the initiation of an action whether or not the injury has been discovered or has even occurred. [8] In fact, prior to the enactment of ORS 30.905(1) we held in Johnson v. Star Machinery Co., 270 Or. 694 , 530 P.2d 53 (1974), that the general torts statute of repose, ORS 12.115(1), also applied to strict product liability actions. [9] Prior to the enactment of ORS 30.905, this plaintiff would have been barred by the general ten-year ultimate statute of repose, ORS 12.115(1), which we applied to product liability actions | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.