service requirement in Oregon

2024According to defendants, the cases support their argument because they show the Oregon appellate courts “grant[ ] a motion to dismiss an appeal against all of the respondents when one of the respondents was not served with * * * a copy of the notice of appeal.” See, e.g., Parson v. Ranes, 148 Or 197 , 35 P2d 986 (1934); Johnson v. Shasta View L.

2024According to defendants, the cases support their argument because they show the Oregon appellate courts “grant[ ] a motion to dismiss an appeal against all of the respondents when one of the respondents was not served with * * * a copy of the notice of appeal.” See, e.g., Parson v. Ranes, 148 Or 197 , 35 P2d 986 (1934); Johnson v. Shasta View L.

2021Second, if presump- tively adequate service is rebutted or not accomplished, then the court must determine whether the method of service was “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the defendant of the existence and pendency of the action and to afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and Cite as 312 Or App 558 (2021) 565 defend.” If the answer to the second question is “yes,” then the service requirement in ORCP 7 D(1) is satisfied.

2021Id.

2015In Hill v. Employment Division, 92 Or App 357, 358 , 758 P2d 420 (1988), we held that the service requirement was “mandatory, but not jurisdictional.” Hill was decided 13 years before the legislature amended ORS 144.335(4), and its construction of an analogous service requirement in ORS 183.482(2) is relevant context in discerning the legislature’s intent in amending ORS 144.335(4).

2015In Hill v. Employment Division, 92 Or App 357, 358 , 758 P2d 420 (1988), we held that the service requirement was “mandatory, but not jurisdictional.” Hill was decided 13 years before the legislature amended ORS 144.335(4), and its construction of an analogous service requirement in ORS 183.482(2) is relevant context in discerning the legislature’s intent in amending ORS 144.335(4).

2010Denkers v. Durham Leasing Co., Inc., 299 Or 544, 550 , 704 P2d 114 (1985) (holding that default judgment was void because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirement of an earlier version of ORCP 69 B(2)); Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. Menken, 181 Or App 332, 344 , 45 P3d 983 (2002) (holding that default judgment was void under ORCP 71 B(1)(d) for failure to follow procedures for service by mail under ORCP 7 D(1)); Van Dyke v. Varsity Club, Inc., 103 Or App 99, 102-03 , 796 P2d 382 , rev den, 310 Or 476 (1990) (a default judgment entered without compliance with notice requireme

2010Denkers v. Durham Leasing Co., Inc., 299 Or 544, 550 , 704 P2d 114 (1985) (holding that default judgment was void because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirement of an earlier version of ORCP 69 B(2)); Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. Menken, 181 Or App 332, 344 , 45 P3d 983 (2002) (holding that default judgment was void under ORCP 71 B(1)(d) for failure to follow procedures for service by mail under ORCP 7 D(1)); Van Dyke v. Varsity Club, Inc., 103 Or App 99, 102-03 , 796 P2d 382 , rev den, 310 Or 476 (1990) (a default judgment entered without compliance with notice requireme

2010Denkers v. Durham Leasing Co., Inc., 299 Or 544, 550 , 704 P2d 114 (1985) (holding that default judgment was void because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirement of an earlier version of ORCP 69 B(2)); Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. Menken, 181 Or App 332, 344 , 45 P3d 983 (2002) (holding that default judgment was void under ORCP 71 B(1)(d) for failure to follow procedures for service by mail under ORCP 7 D(1)); Van Dyke v. Varsity Club, Inc., 103 Or App 99, 102-03 , 796 P2d 382 , rev den, 310 Or 476 (1990) (a default judgment entered without compliance with notice requireme

2010Denkers v. Durham Leasing Co., Inc., 299 Or 544, 550 , 704 P2d 114 (1985) (holding that default judgment was void because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirement of an earlier version of ORCP 69 B(2)); Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. Menken, 181 Or App 332, 344 , 45 P3d 983 (2002) (holding that default judgment was void under ORCP 71 B(1)(d) for failure to follow procedures for service by mail under ORCP 7 D(1)); Van Dyke v. Varsity Club, Inc., 103 Or App 99, 102-03 , 796 P2d 382 , rev den, 310 Or 476 (1990) (a default judgment entered without compliance with notice requireme

2010Denkers v. Durham Leasing Co., Inc., 299 Or 544, 550 , 704 P2d 114 (1985) (holding that default judgment was void because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirement of an earlier version of ORCP 69 B(2)); Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. Menken, 181 Or App 332, 344 , 45 P3d 983 (2002) (holding that default judgment was void under ORCP 71 B(1)(d) for failure to follow procedures for service by mail under ORCP 7 D(1)); Van Dyke v. Varsity Club, Inc., 103 Or App 99, 102-03 , 796 P2d 382 , rev den, 310 Or 476 (1990) (a default judgment entered without compliance with notice requireme

2010Denkers v. Durham Leasing Co., Inc., 299 Or 544, 550 , 704 P2d 114 (1985) (holding that default judgment was void because the plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirement of an earlier version of ORCP 69 B(2)); Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. Menken, 181 Or App 332, 344 , 45 P3d 983 (2002) (holding that default judgment was void under ORCP 71 B(1)(d) for failure to follow procedures for service by mail under ORCP 7 D(1)); Van Dyke v. Varsity Club, Inc., 103 Or App 99, 102-03 , 796 P2d 382 , rev den, 310 Or 476 (1990) (a default judgment entered without compliance with notice requireme

1980However, since the earliest cases the allegations have been the means to bring on the record in the garnishment proceeding the original cause of action and judgment (Case v. Noyes, 16 Or 329 , 19 Pac 104 (1888)).

1980However, since the earliest cases the allegations have been the means to bring on the record in the garnishment proceeding the original cause of action and judgment (Case v. Noyes, 16 Or 329 , 19 Pac 104 (1888)).