From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Blakney

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 22, 1987
85 Or. App. 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

A8511-07296; CA A39977

Argued and submitted April 1, 1987.

Affirmed April 22, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Charles S. Crookham, Judge.

Calvin E. Gantenbein, Jr., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Jonathan T. Harnish, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Bullard, Korshoj, Smith Jernstedt, P.C., Portland.

Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


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 plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and are persuaded that the court did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Martin v. Blakney

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 22, 1987
85 Or. App. 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Martin v. Blakney

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN, Appellant, v. BLAKNEY et al, Respondents

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 22, 1987

Citations

85 Or. App. 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
735 P.2d 1294

Citing Cases

Wallace v. Holden

There is no indication that the dismissal with prejudice was intended to serve as a sanction for failure to…

Boline v. Whitehead

In the alternative, plaintiff argues, the court's decision simply is not supported by the facts. We review…