Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

52 Citing cases

  1. Guirma v. O'Brien

    259 Or. App. 778 (Or. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 7 times
    In Guirma v. O'Brien, 259 Or.App. 778, 316 P.3d 318 (2013), a grandmother retained the defendant, an attorney, to represent her in an effort to adopt her grandchild.

    With respect to legal negligence claims, Oregon follows the “discovery rule” for determining when a claim accrues. Id. at 666, 548 P.2d 966. Under the discovery rule, a legal negligence claim accrues when a client knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know that there is a substantial possibility that she has an actionable injury. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270, 277, 265 P.3d 777 (2011); Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 251 Or.App. 316, 321, 284 P.3d 524 (2012). An actionable injury in a legal negligence claim consists of harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

  2. In re Pacific Cargo Services, LLC

    OR-14-1036-KiKuJu (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Under the discovery rule, a legal malpractice claim accrues "when a client knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know that there is a substantial possibility that she has an actionable injury." Id. (citing Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 265 P.3d 777, 781 (Or. 2011)(en banc)). An actionable injury in a legal malpractice claim consists of harm, causation and tortious conduct.

  3. McCracken v. Arnot (In re Pac. Cargo Servs., LLC)

    BAP No. OR-14-103 6-KiKuJu (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015)

    Under the discovery rule, a legal malpractice claim accrues "when a client knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know that there is a substantial possibility that she has an actionable injury." Id. (citing Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 265 P.3d 777, 781 (Or. 2011)(en banc)). An actionable injury in a legal malpractice claim consists of harm, causation and tortious conduct.

  4. Htaike v. Sein

    269 Or. App. 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 9 times

    To determine what facts a plaintiff should have known, “[t]he discovery rule applies an objective standard—how a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have acted in the same or a similar situation.” Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270, 278, 265 P.3d 777 (2011). As the Supreme Court recently stated, “[i]n applying that standard, a court must consider the facts from the perspective of a reasonable person in the circumstances of the plaintiff.”

  5. Commc'n Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Harlow

    3:12-cv-01923-BR (D. Or. Sep. 23, 2014)

    To prevail on a claim for legal malpractice in Oregon a plaintiff must prove: (1) harm, (2) causation, and (3) tortious conduct. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270, 277 (2011). "In the legal malpractice context . . . a plaintiff must show 'not only that the attorney was negligent, but also that the result would have been different except for the negligence.'"

  6. Doe v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist.

    353 Or. 321 (Or. 2013)   Cited 60 times
    Concluding that, in determining whether the plaintiffs knew that their teacher's sexually abusive touching was offensive when the touching occurred, their status as minors, their relationship with the teacher, and the nature of the harm, could have allowed a jury to conclude that the plaintiffs reasonably did not understand the offensiveness of the conduct at the time of the sexual abuse

    Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270, 278, 265 P.3d 777 (2011) (internal citations omitted). In applying that standard, a court must consider the facts from the perspective of a reasonable person in the circumstances of the plaintiff.

  7. Scriber v. Peters

    3:21-cv-00858-AR (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2023)

    ” Id. at 256 (emphases added); Kaseberg v. Davis WrightTremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270, 278 (2011). “When the facts that should alert a plaintiff to a defendant's role are different for different defendants, the date of accrual may also be different as to each.” T.R. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 344 Or. 282, 292 (2008) (applying discovery accrual rule to § 1983 claims)

  8. De Jaray v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.

    Case No. 3:19-cv-0086-SI (D. Or. Sep. 20, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    For purposes of determining what facts a plaintiff knows or should have known, '[t]he discovery rule applies an objective standard—how a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have acted in the same or a similar situation.'" Padrick v. Lyons, 277 Or. App. 455, 466 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Kasberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270, 278 (2011)). Plaintiffs must "act diligently to discover the relevant facts."

  9. Merchs. Paper Co. v. Newton

    292 Or. App. 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Under the discovery rule, a legal malpractice claim accrues when a person knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know, that there is a substantial possibility that the person has an actionable injury. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP , 351 Or. 270, 278, 265 P.3d 777 (2011) ; Guirma v. O’Brien , 259 Or. App. 778, 779, 316 P.3d 318 (2013). Thus, a legal malpractice claim arises when the person "knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know that there is a substantial possibility that (1) he or she has suffered harm, (2) the harm was caused by the lawyer’s acts or omissions and, (3) the lawyer’s acts or omissions were tortious."

  10. Sternberg v. Lechman-Su

    271 Or. App. 401 (Or. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    In Sternberg v. Lechman-Su, 271 Or. App. 401, 402, 350 P.3d 593, rev. den., 358 Or. 69, 363 P.3d 500 (2015), we addressed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended complaint, which was based on the trial court’s determination that, to the extent that any of plaintiff’s claims stated a claim for legal malpractice, they were barred by the applicable limitations period.

    The elements of a legal malpractice claim are “(1) a duty that runs from the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a resulting harm to the plaintiff measurable in damages; and (4) causation, i.e., a causal link between the breach of duty and the harm.” Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 227, 851 P.2d 556 (1993) (emphasis in original); see also Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or. 270, 277, 265 P.3d 777 (2011) (elements of a legal malpractice claim are harm, causation, and tortious conduct). “To [plead] causation, the plaintiff must [allege] that, but for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would not have suffered the claimed harm.