battery claim (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

battery claim in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc.green
or · 1976 · cited in 4 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2002–2015
2 sentences

2013In Bakker v. Baza’r, Inc., 275 Or 245, 249 , 551 P2d 1269 (1976), this court set out the elements of a battery claim: “To constitute liability for a battery, the conduct which brings about the harm must be an act of volition on the actor’s part, and the actor must have intended to bring about a harmful or offensive contact or put the other party in apprehension thereof. 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 215-17, § 3.3 (1956).

2013In Bakker v. Baza’r, Inc., 275 Or 245, 249 , 551 P2d 1269 (1976), this court set out the elements of a battery claim: “To constitute liability for a battery, the conduct which brings about the harm must be an act of volition on the actor’s part, and the actor must have intended to bring about a harmful or offensive contact or put the other party in apprehension thereof. 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 215-17, § 3.3 (1956).

14

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Doe v. Lake Oswego School District green
or · 2013
2 sentences

2013Cite as 353 Or 321 (2013) 331 Plaintiffs accept that intentional action that results in offensive contact gives rise to a battery claim, but respond that they reasonably did not recognize Johnson’s conduct as offensive when they were fifth-graders in his classroom.

2013Instead, the court concluded, application of the discovery rule meant that the battery claim did not accrue — and the limitations period did not begin to run — until the plaintiffs not only discovered that the touching had occurred, but also recognized (or would be deemed to have recognized) that the touching “was in fact offensive.” * * * Id. at 331 .

32013–2015
Dumanovskiy v. Oregon Youth Authority neutral
orctapp · 2025
1 sentence

2025Here, the legal injuries that plaintiff alleged under the ELL, and of negligence, battery, assault, and IIED, are all consistent with the types of legal wrongs resulting in Cite as 346 Or App 166 (2025) 171 physical and mental injuries that are covered by workers’ compensation.

12025–2025
Berry v. Branner green
or · 1966
2 sentences

2013The seminal case remains Berry v. Branner, 245 Or 307, 308 , 421 P2d 996 (1966), a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant surgeon negligently had left a needle in her abdomen following a hysterectomy.

2013The seminal case remains Berry v. Branner, 245 Or 307, 308 , 421 P2d 996 (1966), a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant surgeon negligently had left a needle in her abdomen following a hysterectomy.

12013–2013
Ballinger v. Klamath Pacific Corp. green
orctapp · 1995
1 sentence

1997Id. at 445-46, 898 P.2d 232 .

11997–1997
Aiken v. Shell Oil Co. green
or · 1959
2 sentences

1984The court also directed a verdict on the negligence claim, relying on Aiken v. Shell Oil Co. et al and Huey, 219 Or 523 , 348 P2d 51 (1959). 1 The principal basis for plaintiffs battery claim is that the investigating police officers who physically touched him did so solely on the basis of the telephone call from defendant Stone.

1984The court also directed a verdict on the negligence claim, relying on Aiken v. Shell Oil Co. et al and Huey, 219 Or 523 , 348 P2d 51 (1959). 1 The principal basis for plaintiffs battery claim is that the investigating police officers who physically touched him did so solely on the basis of the telephone call from defendant Stone.

11984–1984

Where else courts name it

CA 41 (1986–2026) IL 21 (1972–2021) GA 19 (1988–2024) IN 17 (1985–2020) OH 12 (1996–2025) PA 11 (1993–2025) NY 10 (1979–2026) FL 10 (1995–2025) TX 9 (2012–2023) OR 8 (1984–2025) NV 6 (1988–2016) MN 6 (1980–2016) AZ 6 (2003–2026) VA 5 (2017–2023) LA 5 (1991–2019) MD 5 (1982–2016) DC 5 (1978–2022) ND 4 (2023–2025) NJ 4 (2005–2019) IA 4 (2015–2025) KS 4 (1997–2017) KY 4 (2023–2026) MO 4 (1895–2019) MA 3 (1982–2022) NE 3 (2024–2025) UT 3 (2005–2017) TN 3 (1987–2015) WV 3 (1991–2020) VT 2 (2005–2014) WI 2 (1990–2007) CT 2 (1999–1999) MS 2 (2016–2017) AR 2 (1995–1995)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check