14 Cited authorities

  1. New Hampshire v. Maine

    532 U.S. 742 (2001)   Cited 4,519 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”
  2. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

    304 U.S. 64 (1938)   Cited 20,300 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
  3. Johnson v. Lindon City Corp.

    405 F.3d 1065 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 169 times
    Holding judicial estoppel applies when party took a prior inconsistent position, persuaded the court to accept that position, and then would obtain an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment to the other party by switching courses midstream
  4. Gaston v. Parsons

    318 Or. 247 (Or. 1994)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that the three elements of a negligence claim exist
  5. Berry v. Branner

    245 Or. 307 (Or. 1966)   Cited 161 times
    Finding that "the cause of action accrued at the time plaintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge of the tort committed upon her person by defendant"
  6. Greene v. Legacy Emanuel Hosp

    335 Or. 115 (Or. 2002)   Cited 53 times
    Setting out the discovery rule for negligence claims
  7. Petitions for Review

    324 Or. 560 (Or. 1997)   Cited 55 times
    Rejecting the post-conviction petitioner's claim that a plea was not knowing and voluntary based on findings of post-conviction court that the "petitioner executed a plea petition that set out the rights that he was waiving, that trial counsel read the petition to petitioner before he entered his guilty plea, and that, before accepting the plea, the trial court assured itself that petitioner's plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent" (footnote omitted)
  8. Doe v. American Red Cross

    322 Or. 502 (Or. 1996)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that, without any evidence as to what Doe would have discovered if he had inquired, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on its statute of limitations defense
  9. Widing v. Schwabe, Williamson Wyatt

    154 Or. App. 276 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Applying the discovery rule set forth in Gaston to a fraud claim
  10. Gehrke v. Crafco, Inc.

    143 Or. App. 517 (Or. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 18 times
    In Gehrke, the court found that the identity of the possessor of the store was inherently discoverable, and the possessor unquestionably was the liable party.
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 326,905 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 12.010 - Time of commencing actions

    ORS § 12.010   Cited 129 times
    Compiling section 7, as amended by SB 813