Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Petock v. Asante

5 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or.

    45 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (D. Or. 2014)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that BOLI's regulation implementing a veteran's preference statute is entitled to deference and is consistent with legislative intent

    The issue before the Court on this element is whether the facts that gave rise to Davis's workplace injury are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that the workplace injury resulted in the lumbar spine injuries as claimed by Davis, and, thus, limited her from performing the essential duties of her job. See Petock v. Asante, 351 Or. 408, 422, 268 P.3d 579 (2011). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the facts show that “no reasonable juror” could find that Davis's workplace injury caused the harm that she alleges.

  2. Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc.

    CC 06-2731-L7 (Or. Mar. 7, 2013)

    We state the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff because the trial court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Petock v. Asante, 351 Or 408, 411 n 1, 268 P3d 579 (2011) (stating standard). Plaintiff worked as a salesperson at a Lithia Dodge dealership from 1997 to October 2005.

  3. Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc.

    353 Or. 282 (Or. 2013)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that two elements of a fraud claim are justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation and resulting damages

    We state the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff because the trial court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Petock v. Asante, 351 Or. 408, 411 n. 1, 268 P.3d 579 (2011) (stating standard). Plaintiff worked as a salesperson at a Lithia Dodge dealership from 1997 to October 2005.

  4. Eklof v. Steward

    360 Or. 717 (Or. 2016)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that it is improper for a trial court to decide a summary-judgment motion on a basis not raised in the motion

    That criterion is of particular importance where, as here, the opposing party had no reason to adduce evidence on an issue that was not raised in the summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Petock v. Asante , 351 Or. 408, 425, 268 P.3d 579 (2011) (rejecting alternative basis for affirming summary judgment because the court could not conclude that the record was materially the same one that would have been developed had the defendant raised the alternative basis for affirmance in its summary judgment motion). In opposing the state's summary judgment motion, petitioner was required to address issues raised in the motion, but only those issues.

  5. Kelley v. Wash. Cnty.

    303 Or. App. 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    See Petock v. Asante , 237 Or. App. 113, 125, 240 P.3d 56, adh'd to on recons. , 238 Or. App. 711, 243 P.3d 822 (2010), aff'd on other grounds , 351 Or. 408, 268 P.3d 579 (2011) ("Judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense." (Citing Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. v. Jewett , 320 Or. 599, 611, 892 P.2d 683 (1995). )