Christine Reinert Recognized as “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine
MacMillan, Scholz & Marks, P.C. is pleased to report that senior associate Christine Reinert was selected as a Rising Star in the state of Oregon by Super Lawyers Magazine. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high-degree of...
Oregon Court of Appeals Upholds Dismissal Based on Statute of Repose
Plaintiff had brought product liability claims against Dynacco and others, alleging plaintiff’s decedent died as a result of exposure to benzene-containing products, some of which were allegedly manufactured by Dynacco. The trial court dismissed all claims against...
Preemptory Release at Ski Resort Found Unconscionable by Oregon Supreme Court
In Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court recently refused to enforce the preemptory release the Mt. Bachelor ski resort was requiring patrons purchasing season passes to accept, holding that the release was unconscionable. 356 Or. 542 (2014). The...
Oregon Court of Appeals Continues to Refine the Applicable Statutes of Repose and Limitation in Construction Defect Cases
As discussed below, two recent Oregon Court of Appeals decisions have shed further light on statute of repose and litigation issues in construction defect cases. The two companion cases are Riverview Condo. Ass'n v. Cypress Ventures, Inc., No. 100710713, 2014 WL...
“Recovery” Requires a Money Judgment in Actions Under ORS 742.061
ORS 742.061 (emphasis added) provides in relevant part: "…if settlement is not made within six months from the date proof of loss is filed with an insurer and an action is brought in any court of this state upon any policy of insurance of any kind or nature, and the...
Oregon Court of Appeals Officially Recognizes Forum Non Conveniens
The Oregon Court of Appeals finally and unequivocally recognized the availability of the forum non conveniens doctrine in Oregon state courts, laying to rest an unanswered legal question existing since the early 1900s. The case, Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters,...
Indemnity: Considerations of Passive and Secondary Liability are Relevant but not Dispositive
In Oregon, a factor in any common law indemnity claim is the evaluation of, as between the two parties, which party’s negligence was active and primary versus passive and secondary. How that test or factor is applied to any particular set of facts, however, varies on...
Foreseeability in Negligence Claims: Inferences of Foreseeability in Summary Judgment Must be Based on the Laws of Logic
A recent decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals has refined the meaning of foreseeability in the context of negligence claims. In Chapman v. Mayfield, A150341, 2014 WL 2608550 (Or Ct App June 11, 2014), defendant’s bar continued to serve alcoholic beverages to...
The Sufficiency of ORCP 47 E Declarations in Defeating Motions for Summary Judgment Against Negligence Claims
A recent decision by the Oregon Supreme Court has clarified the requirements for an ORCP 47 E declaration to overcome a motion for summary judgment in the context of a negligence action. The case, Linda Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319 (2014), arose from...
The Status of Medical Peer Review Privilege in Federal Court: Oregon District Court Refuses to Recognize a Federal Privilege
A recent opinion by Oregon District Court Judge Michael H. Simon established that the Oregon District Court would adhere to precedent established in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, refusing to recognize a federal privilege with respect to medical peer...
“Substantial Completion” in Construction Defect Claims: New Decisions Narrow Meaning but Questions Remain
Two recent decisions by the Oregon Supreme Court have narrowed the meaning of “substantial completion” in the context of ORS 12.135, the statue of ultimate repose for construction defect claims. The cases, PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc., 355 Or 267 (2014), and...
Venue and Regularly Sustained Business Activity
By Melanie Rose In Kohring et. al. v. Ballard et. al. the Oregon Supreme Court recently held that for venue to be proper under ORS 14.080(2) a defendant business entity must have a regular and systematic flow of products or services within the jurisdiction. 2014 WL...