McCarthy v. Rogstad

How courts have described this case

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

• \We do not consider arguments for reversal of a trial court ruling raised for the first time in a reply brief.\
• “We do not consider arguments for reversal of a trial court ruling raised for the first time in a reply brief[.]” (Citing Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 380-81, 823 P2d 956 (1991).
• reliance on an ORCP 47 E affidavit is inappropriate where the plaintiff was not required to provide the opinion of an expert to establish whether the defendants acted in good faith reliance on the advice of their legal counsel
• “We do not consider arguments for reversal of a trial court ruling raised for the first time in a reply brief[.]” (Citing Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 380-81, 823 P2d 956 (1991).); cf. US Bank, NA v. Eckert, 267 Or App 721, 722, 341 P3d 173 (2014
• affidavit under ORCP 47 E ineffective where inappropriate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).