From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petitions for Review

Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 18, 2000
329 Or. 589 (Or. 2000)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

explaining that, in reviewing a motion to amend, we keep in mind that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires" and balance four factors to determine if the court permissibly exercised its discretion: the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and the colorable merit of the proposed amendment

Summary of this case from Ragaway v. City of Portland
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

January 18, 2000

Summaries of

Petitions for Review

Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 18, 2000
329 Or. 589 (Or. 2000)

explaining that, in reviewing a motion to amend, we keep in mind that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires" and balance four factors to determine if the court permissibly exercised its discretion: the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and the colorable merit of the proposed amendment

Summary of this case from Ragaway v. City of Portland

identifying four factors relevant to the court's exercise of discretion

Summary of this case from Eklof v. Persson

discussing court's discretion to allow amendments to post-conviction petition

Summary of this case from Ogle v. Nooth

describing clear contradiction between the plaintiff's deposition testimony that he filed claim on behalf of all shareholders of a corporation and the plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to summary judgment stating that he had filed the claim on his own behalf

Summary of this case from Knepper v. Brown

reasoning that the presumption of concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts "may be rebutted by an explicit statutory directive, unmistakable implication from legislative history or by a clear incompatibility between state and federal interests" and holding that the plaintiffs had presented no credible argument to rebut the presumption of concurrent jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Hinton v. Hannigan
Case details for

Petitions for Review

Case Details

Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Jan 18, 2000

Citations

329 Or. 589 (Or. 2000)

Citing Cases

Gill v. Lampert

We have also held that it constitutes inadequate assistance of counsel if counsel fails to object when a…

Wells v. Santos

" Temple v. Zenon, 124 Or App 388, 390, 862 P2d 585 (1993). In Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145, 986…

63 Citing Cases