United Adjusters, Inc. v. Shaylor

Court of Appeals of Oregon

United Adjusters, Inc. v. Shaylor

713 P.2d 687, 77 Or. App. 510, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2438

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 29, 1986

Docket82-C-226457; CA A33147

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 713 P.2d 687 (United Adjusters, Inc. v. Shaylor) 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

United Adjusters, Inc. v. Shaylor, 713 P.2d 687, 77 Or. App. 510, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2438 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

*511 PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this action to collect two assigned claims. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment on April 30, 1983. Plaintiff moved to reconsider the summary judgment. On July 8,1983, the court vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial. Defendant appealed, and this court dismissed the appeal on its own motion “as from a non-appealable order.” The trial court then entered an order on August 7,1984, vacating defendant’s judgment and granting plaintiff a new trial. Defendant appealed again.,ORS 19.010(d). We reverse.

A court can only grant a new trial under ORCP 64. Plaintiffs motion to reconsider was a motion for a new trial. See State ex rel State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 285 Or 179, 590 P2d 231 (1979); Schmidling v. Dove, 65 Or App 1, 5, 670 P2d 166 (1983). Although a court has inherent authority, which ORCP 71C recognizes, to set aside, modify or relieve a party from a judgment under some circumstances, see Far West Landscaping v. Modern Merchandising, 287 Or 653, 601 P2d 1237 (1979), ORCP 64 circumscribes its power to grant a new trial. The court did not hear and determine plaintiffs motion within 55 days of April 30, 1983, and the motion was “conclusively” deemed denied. ORCP 64F; see also Micek v. LeMaster, 71 Or App 361, 692 P2d 652 (1984), rev den 298 Or 773 (1985).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate judgment for defendant.

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

*511 PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this action to collect two assigned claims. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment on April 30, 1983. Plaintiff moved to reconsider the summary judgment. On July 8,1983, the court vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial. Defendant appealed, and this court dismissed the appeal on its own motion “as from a non-appealable order.” The trial court then entered an order on August 7,1984, vacating defendant’s judgment and granting plaintiff a new trial. Defendant appealed again.,ORS 19.010(d). We reverse.

A court can only grant a new trial under ORCP 64. Plaintiffs motion to reconsider was a motion for a new trial. See State ex rel State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 285 Or 179, 590 P2d 231 (1979); Schmidling v. Dove, 65 Or App 1, 5, 670 P2d 166 (1983). Although a court has inherent authority, which ORCP 71C recognizes, to set aside, modify or relieve a party from a judgment under some circumstances, see Far West Landscaping v. Modern Merchandising, 287 Or 653, 601 P2d 1237 (1979), ORCP 64 circumscribes its power to grant a new trial. The court did not hear and determine plaintiffs motion within 55 days of April 30, 1983, and the motion was “conclusively” deemed denied. ORCP 64F; see also Micek v. LeMaster, 71 Or App 361, 692 P2d 652 (1984), rev den 298 Or 773 (1985).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate judgment for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

713 P.2d 687, 77 Or. App. 510, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-adjusters-inc-v-shaylor-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack