Anderson v. Pima Financial Service Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Anderson v. Pima Financial Service Corp.

775 P.2d 904, 97 Or. App. 259

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 14, 1989

Docket87 CV 097; CA A48208

StatusPublished

This text of 775 P.2d 904 (Anderson v. Pima Financial Service Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Pima Financial Service Corp., 775 P.2d 904, 97 Or. App. 259 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to amend her complaint. The motion was made more than two months before trial. It was supported by a showing that the new claim that plaintiff sought to add was based on recently discovered evidence of which plaintiff learned in a follow-up investigation after defendants responded to her request for production. We conclude that, under those circumstances, the court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the amendment.¹

Plaintiff also assigns error to the court’s rulings on the parties’ summary judgment motions and to its disposition of the principal issue that was tried. We do not know what issues will remain in the case or will have to be decided after the complaint is amended, and we decline to address the other assignments.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to amend her complaint. The motion was made more than two months before trial. It was supported by a showing that the new claim that plaintiff sought to add was based on recently discovered evidence of which plaintiff learned in a follow-up investigation after defendants responded to her request for production. We conclude that, under those circumstances, the court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the amendment.¹

Plaintiff also assigns error to the court’s rulings on the parties’ summary judgment motions and to its disposition of the principal issue that was tried. We do not know what issues will remain in the case or will have to be decided after the complaint is amended, and we decline to address the other assignments.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

775 P.2d 904, 97 Or. App. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-pima-financial-service-corp-orctapp-1989.