party bringing claim in Oregon

2025See id. at 615 (noting that “it is still the burden of the nonmoving party to produce Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 806 (2025) 809 some evidence, sufficient to create a genuine issue of mate- rial fact, ‘on any issue raised in the motion as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial’ ” notwithstanding the “highly deferential standard of sum- mary judgment” (quoting ORCP 47 C)); Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc., 290 Or App 518, 523 , 417 P3d 545 , rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (explaining plaintiff’s “burden to present evidence” on defamation claim).

2025See id. at 615 (noting that “it is still the burden of the nonmoving party to produce Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 806 (2025) 809 some evidence, sufficient to create a genuine issue of mate- rial fact, ‘on any issue raised in the motion as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial’ ” notwithstanding the “highly deferential standard of sum- mary judgment” (quoting ORCP 47 C)); Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc., 290 Or App 518, 523 , 417 P3d 545 , rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (explaining plaintiff’s “burden to present evidence” on defamation claim).

2025See id. at 615 (noting that “it is still the burden of the nonmoving party to produce Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 806 (2025) 809 some evidence, sufficient to create a genuine issue of mate- rial fact, ‘on any issue raised in the motion as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial’ ” notwithstanding the “highly deferential standard of sum- mary judgment” (quoting ORCP 47 C)); Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc., 290 Or App 518, 523 , 417 P3d 545 , rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (explaining plaintiff’s “burden to present evidence” on defamation claim).

2025See id. at 615 (noting that “it is still the burden of the nonmoving party to produce Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 806 (2025) 809 some evidence, sufficient to create a genuine issue of mate- rial fact, ‘on any issue raised in the motion as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial’ ” notwithstanding the “highly deferential standard of sum- mary judgment” (quoting ORCP 47 C)); Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc., 290 Or App 518, 523 , 417 P3d 545 , rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (explaining plaintiff’s “burden to present evidence” on defamation claim).

2025See id. at 615 (noting that “it is still the burden of the nonmoving party to produce Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 806 (2025) 809 some evidence, sufficient to create a genuine issue of mate- rial fact, ‘on any issue raised in the motion as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial’ ” notwithstanding the “highly deferential standard of sum- mary judgment” (quoting ORCP 47 C)); Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc., 290 Or App 518, 523 , 417 P3d 545 , rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (explaining plaintiff’s “burden to present evidence” on defamation claim).

2025See id. at 615 (noting that “it is still the burden of the nonmoving party to produce Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 806 (2025) 809 some evidence, sufficient to create a genuine issue of mate- rial fact, ‘on any issue raised in the motion as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial’ ” notwithstanding the “highly deferential standard of sum- mary judgment” (quoting ORCP 47 C)); Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc., 290 Or App 518, 523 , 417 P3d 545 , rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (explaining plaintiff’s “burden to present evidence” on defamation claim).

2018The Supreme Court in Nepom framed the issue narrowly as a procedural question: whether a party “by stip- ulation or by attacking only one of the valuations [can] raise the one specific issue on an appeal.” 272 Or at 254 .41 The court cited ORS 308.215 and recognized the overall impor- tance of separately stating land and improvement values on the assessment roll.42 However, the court said nothing about 41 See also Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 328 Or 552, 560 , 938 P2d 527 (1999) (“The Nepom court did not suggest, let alone hold, that a party bringing a challenge under ORS 309.100 must challenge th

2018The Supreme Court in Nepom framed the issue narrowly as a procedural question: whether a party “by stip- ulation or by attacking only one of the valuations [can] raise the one specific issue on an appeal.” 272 Or at 254 .41 The court cited ORS 308.215 and recognized the overall impor- tance of separately stating land and improvement values on the assessment roll.42 However, the court said nothing about 41 See also Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 328 Or 552, 560 , 938 P2d 527 (1999) (“The Nepom court did not suggest, let alone hold, that a party bringing a challenge under ORS 309.100 must challenge th

2005Yancy v. Shatzer, 337 Or 345, 349 , 97 P3d 1161 (2004); Utsey, 176 Or App at 542 (citing cases).

2005Yancy v. Shatzer, 337 Or 345, 349 , 97 P3d 1161 (2004); Utsey, 176 Or App at 542 (citing cases).