relation-back doctrine in Oregon

1993This court has made the following statement regarding the relation-back doctrine under ORCP 23 C: “The apparent rationale for allowing a post-limitation amendment to relate back to the pre-limitation pleading, and thereby defeat the statute of limitations, is that a party who is notified of litigation concerning certain conduct * * * or a given transaction or occurrence through the original complaint, has been given the notice that the statute of limitations was intended to assure.” Welch v. Bancorp Management Services, 296 Or 208, 221 , 675 P2d 172 (1983) (citations omitted), modified 296 Or

1993This court has made the following statement regarding the relation-back doctrine under ORCP 23 C: “The apparent rationale for allowing a post-limitation amendment to relate back to the pre-limitation pleading, and thereby defeat the statute of limitations, is that a party who is notified of litigation concerning certain conduct * * * or a given transaction or occurrence through the original complaint, has been given the notice that the statute of limitations was intended to assure.” Welch v. Bancorp Management Services, 296 Or 208, 221 , 675 P2d 172 (1983) (citations omitted), modified 296 Or

2016And there is no dispute that the prior order expressly recites that “the relation back doctrine of ORCP 23 C does not apply.” Plaintiff argues, however, that the ruling was not essential to a final decision on the merits. 3 Plaintiff relies on Koos v. Roth, 43 Or App 383, 387 , 602 P2d 1128 (1979), in which we said that a “dismissal without prejudice adjudicates nothing, and would not lend itself to a later assertion of res judicata or collateral estop-pel.” (Citing Huszar v. Certified Realty Co., 272 Or 517, 523 , 538 P2d 57 (1975)).

2016And there is no dispute that the prior order expressly recites that “the relation back doctrine of ORCP 23 C does not apply.” Plaintiff argues, however, that the ruling was not essential to a final decision on the merits. 3 Plaintiff relies on Koos v. Roth, 43 Or App 383, 387 , 602 P2d 1128 (1979), in which we said that a “dismissal without prejudice adjudicates nothing, and would not lend itself to a later assertion of res judicata or collateral estop-pel.” (Citing Huszar v. Certified Realty Co., 272 Or 517, 523 , 538 P2d 57 (1975)).

2016And there is no dispute that the prior order expressly recites that “the relation back doctrine of ORCP 23 C does not apply.” Plaintiff argues, however, that the ruling was not essential to a final decision on the merits. 3 Plaintiff relies on Koos v. Roth, 43 Or App 383, 387 , 602 P2d 1128 (1979), in which we said that a “dismissal without prejudice adjudicates nothing, and would not lend itself to a later assertion of res judicata or collateral estop-pel.” (Citing Huszar v. Certified Realty Co., 272 Or 517, 523 , 538 P2d 57 (1975)).

2016And there is no dispute that the prior order expressly recites that “the relation back doctrine of ORCP 23 C does not apply.” Plaintiff argues, however, that the ruling was not essential to a final decision on the merits. 3 Plaintiff relies on Koos v. Roth, 43 Or App 383, 387 , 602 P2d 1128 (1979), in which we said that a “dismissal without prejudice adjudicates nothing, and would not lend itself to a later assertion of res judicata or collateral estop-pel.” (Citing Huszar v. Certified Realty Co., 272 Or 517, 523 , 538 P2d 57 (1975)).

2016As the Supreme Court explained in Huszar , “because a judgment of nonsuit does not ‘reach the merits,’ a judgment dismissing a case without prejudice ‘adjudge (s) nothing, because the final judgment by its terms is that nothing has been adjudicated.’” 272 Or at 523 (quoting Piukkula v. Pillsbury Flouring Co., 150 Or 304, 327 , 42 P2d 921 (1935)).

2016As the Supreme Court explained in Huszar , “because a judgment of nonsuit does not ‘reach the merits,’ a judgment dismissing a case without prejudice ‘adjudge (s) nothing, because the final judgment by its terms is that nothing has been adjudicated.’” 272 Or at 523 (quoting Piukkula v. Pillsbury Flouring Co., 150 Or 304, 327 , 42 P2d 921 (1935)).

2013Id. at 465 .

1993This court has made the following statement regarding the relation-back doctrine under ORCP 23 C: “The apparent rationale for allowing a post-limitation amendment to relate back to the pre-limitation pleading, and thereby defeat the statute of limitations, is that a party who is notified of litigation concerning certain conduct * * * or a given transaction or occurrence through the original complaint, has been given the notice that the statute of limitations was intended to assure.” Welch v. Bancorp Management Services, 296 Or 208, 221 , 675 P2d 172 (1983) (citations omitted), modified 296 Or

1992Evans v. Salem Hospital, 83 Or App 23, 31 , 730 P2d 562 (1986), rev den 303 Or 331 (1987), says: “[A] new claim cannot relate back to an earlier pleading unless there is at least enough of a nexus between the claims for the defendant to have been able to have discerned from the first that the existence of the second was a possibility.” Even if it were necessary to apply the relation back doctrine here, it is satisfied because plaintiffs second complaint states claims that defendants could have predicted from her first action.

1992Evans v. Salem Hospital, 83 Or App 23, 31 , 730 P2d 562 (1986), rev den 303 Or 331 (1987), says: “[A] new claim cannot relate back to an earlier pleading unless there is at least enough of a nexus between the claims for the defendant to have been able to have discerned from the first that the existence of the second was a possibility.” Even if it were necessary to apply the relation back doctrine here, it is satisfied because plaintiffs second complaint states claims that defendants could have predicted from her first action.

1964The following quotations taken from Graves v. Welborn, 260 NC 688, 133 SE2d 761 , reveal the court’s adherence to the doctrine of relation back: u* * * it is obvious, therefore, that unless the plaintiff’s appointment as administratrix related bade to the institution of this action, or to the time the order adjudicating her right to letters was signed, it cannot survive defendant’s denial of the allegations in paragraph one of the complaint.

1964The following quotations taken from Graves v. *186 Welborn, 260 NC 688, 133 SE2d 761 , reveal the court's adherence to the doctrine of relation back: "* * * It is obvious, therefore, that unless the plaintiff's appointment as administratrix related back to the institution of this action, or to the time the order adjudicating her right to letters was signed, it cannot survive defendant's denial of the allegations in paragraph one of the complaint.