From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Donahoo v. Zacharias

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 27, 1987
737 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

60-84-05471; CA A39980

Argued and submitted April 13, 1987.

Appeal dismissed May 27, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Lane County, Bryan T. Hodges, Judge Pro Tempore.

John A. Reuling, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Lois Ann Day, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the for respondent John R. Zacharias.

No appearance for respondent Mary K. Donahoo.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Appeal dismissed.


The state appeals from an order of the trial court setting aside a default judgment against respondent. See ORCP 71B. That order is not appealable, Wershow v. McVeety Machinery, 263 Or. 97, 101, 500 P.2d 696 (1972), unless the court lacked jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter. Flynn v. Davidson, 80 Or. 502, 155 P. 197, 157 P. 788 (1916). The only contention here is that the trial court erred in setting aside the judgment by default.

The state argues that ORS 19.010(2)(d), which provides for appeals from "[a]n order setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial," sanctions an appeal from an order setting aside a default. That statute existed when Wershow was decided, and the language of Wershow indicates that the Supreme Court was aware of it.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Donahoo v. Zacharias

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 27, 1987
737 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Donahoo v. Zacharias

Case Details

Full title:DONAHOO, Respondent, and STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 27, 1987

Citations

737 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
737 P.2d 1250

Citing Cases

Lorentz Bruun Company v. Execulodge Corp.

Id. at 99. The Court of Appeals correctly followed this rule in Donahoo v. Zacharias, 85 Or. App. 551, 552,…

Housley and Housley

We understand the Supreme Court's discussion of that point to hold that the order was not appealable as…