Martin v. Blakney

735 P.2d 1294, 85 Or. App. 203
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 22, 1987
DocketA8511-07296; CA A39977
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 735 P.2d 1294 (Martin v. Blakney) 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
Martin v. Blakney, 735 P.2d 1294, 85 Or. App. 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendants gave plaintiff a notice of deposition. Less than two hours before the time fixed for the deposition, plaintiff’s attorney informed defendants’ counsel that he was unable to attend. The deposition was reset, but neither plaintiff nor his attorney appeared for that deposition. Defendants’ counsel moved for sanctions under ORCP 46. When the motion was called for hearing by the presiding judge, neither plaintiff nor his counsel was present. The court dismissed plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and are persuaded that the court did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Wallace v. Holden
445 P.3d 914 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2019)
Boline v. Whitehead
850 P.2d 1128 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
735 P.2d 1294, 85 Or. App. 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-blakney-orctapp-1987.