Oregon Supreme Court· 1/6/1994

Gaston v. Parsons

Citations

864 P.2d 1319
318 Or. 247
1994 Ore. LEXIS 2

How courts have described this case

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

concluding — after equating the discovery rule in ORS 12.110(4) with the discovery rule in ORS 12.110(1) — that the limitation period under ORS 12.110(4
noting that ORS 12.110(4) was intended to codify the court’s discovery rule
discussing when genuine issue of fact exists as to when plaintiff discovered defendant’s tortious conduct in medical malpractice case
interpreting the ORS 12.110(4) two-year tort statute of limitations, which is triggered by discovery of injury, to require more than “a mere suspicion” of an actionable injury
defining level of knowledge necessary to say that a cause of action has accrued
context includes case law interpreting the text of the statute itself and other related statutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Unis, Graber, Peterson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

114 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Gaston v. Parsons

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.