Baker v. Foy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that service in accordance with ORCP 7 D(2)(b) is “presumptively adequate service”
• adopting two- step methodology to assess the adequacy of service under ORCP 7 D, including recognizing “presumptively adequate” service methods
• describing two-step inquiry for determining whether, under ORCP 7, process was properly served
• “[A]ctual notice by itself does not necessarily constitute adequate notice and adequate notice does not require actual notice.”
• If service is made in a method described in ORCP 7 D(2), then service is presumed valid “[i]f there is nothing in the record that overcomes the presumption.”
• discussing the test for adequacy of service under Oregon law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).