From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ashley v. Fletcher

Oregon Supreme Court
Jun 24, 1976
550 P.2d 1385 (Or. 1976)

Summary

referencing professional architects

Summary of this case from Or. Imaging Ctrs., LLC v. Advocate Radiology Billing & Reimbursement Specialists, LLC

Opinion

Argued June 8, 1976

Affirmed June 24, 1976

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Affirmed.

John J. Murchison, Judge.

Dean M. Alexander, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson Schwabe and Kenneth E. Roberts, Portland.

Before Denecke, Chief Justice, and McAllister, O'Connell, Holman, Howell and Bryson, Justices.


The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the defendant breached his contract to perform architectural services by failing to supervise construction, failing to make inspections, etc. Plaintiff contends the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breaches of contract (ORS 12.080) should apply. The trial court held the two-year statute (ORS 12.110), applicable to injuries to the rights of another not arising on contract, applied. Its decision was in accord with our decision in Bales for Food v. Poole, 246 Or. 253, 424 P.2d 892 (1967), in which we examined and rejected a contention similar to that now advanced by plaintiff.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Ashley v. Fletcher

Oregon Supreme Court
Jun 24, 1976
550 P.2d 1385 (Or. 1976)

referencing professional architects

Summary of this case from Or. Imaging Ctrs., LLC v. Advocate Radiology Billing & Reimbursement Specialists, LLC
Case details for

Ashley v. Fletcher

Case Details

Full title:ASHLEY, Appellant, v. FLETCHER, Respondent

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Jun 24, 1976

Citations

550 P.2d 1385 (Or. 1976)
550 P.2d 1385

Citing Cases

Securities-Intermountain v. Sunset Fuel

Defendants maintain that plaintiff's action was commenced too late because its causes of actions are not…

Beveridge v. King

See note 4, supra. Whatever may be true as to the continuing vitality of those decisions, such as Ashley v.…