ORCP 67A
����� See also annotations under ORS 18.010 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 18.010)
����� Where trial court issued order awarding partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on issue of liability but no judgment was entered after order, order was not final judgment and court had discretion to vacate it. Journeymen, Inc. v. Judson, 45 Or App 249, 608 P2d 563 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
In general
����� Two or more documents may constitute final judgment when considered together if they adjudicate every claim presented and determine rights and liabilities of each party. State ex rel Zidell v. Jones, 301 Or 79, 720 P2d 350 (1986); State ex rel Orbanco Real Estate Serv. v. Allen, 301 Or 104, 720 P2d 365 (1986)
����� Where trial court failed to dispose of all counterclaims in what court designated as �Judgment Order,� that determination was not judgment under this rule nor ORCP 67B and court erred in ordering interest from date of entry of that order, because interest is allowable only on judgments. Maduff Mortgage Corp. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 98 Or App 497, 779 P2d 1083 (1989)
ORCP 67B
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 18.125)
����� Where several orders finally adjudicated rights of all parties, there was no requirement for appealability that several judgments be summarized in single judgment order. Jones v. Tri-State Realty, 46 Or App 159, 611 P2d 312 (1980)
In general
����� Where court did not articulate in its judgment or elsewhere any reasons supporting conclusion that interests of judicial economy would be served by interlocutory appeal from dismissal of lien claim while quantum meruit claim arising from same construction contract was held in abeyance, appeal was dismissed. Redmond Electric v. Gonzales, 63 Or App 606, 665 P2d 373 (1983)
����� Bare recital that there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment is insufficient to render judgment for less than all claims or parties final judgment for purposes of appeal. Bonner v. Krause, 69 Or App 1, 684 P2d 10 (1984)
����� Rule does not require trial court to state reasons for express determination that there is �no just reason for delay� and decision is reviewable on direct appeal. May v. Josephine Memorial Hospital, 297 Or 525, 686 P2d 1015 (1984)
����� Absence of express direction to enter judgment is fatal and appeal was dismissed even though it was implicit that trial court intended that judgment be entered immediately and not at conclusion of entire action. Hale v. County of Multnomah, 298 Or 141, 689 P2d 1290 (1984)
����� In absence of judgment disposing of all claims against all parties, or judgment finally disposing of fewer than all claims pursuant to this rule, there is no final judgment from which appeal can be taken; thus, although complaints against some parties had been ordered dismissed, no judgment was entered pursuant to those orders, and judgment appealed by other parties was not final appealable judgment. Oregonians Against Trapping v. Martin, 72 Or App 210, 695 P2d 932 (1985)
����� Order pursuant to pretrial stipulation dismissing claim against third party defendant, without judgment entered in favor of that defendant, is not appealable judgment or decree. Pearson v. Ogden Marine, Inc., 74 Or App 670, 704 P2d 521 (1985)
����� Claim withdrawn in open court must be reduced to judgment. Maduff Mortgage Corp. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 83 Or App 15, 730 P2d 558 (1986), Sup Ct review denied, modified 98 Or App 497, 779 P2d 1083 (1989)
����� This rule does not require single judgment disposing of all claims as long as there are judgments which, taken together, dispose of all claims asserted in case. Maduff Mortgage Corp. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 83 Or App 15, 730 P2d 558 (1986), Sup Ct review denied, modified 98 Or App 497, 779 P2d 1083 (1989)
����� Two or more documents may constitute final judgment when considered together if they adjudicate every claim presented and determine rights and liabilities of each party. State ex rel Zidell v. Jones, 301 Or 79, 720 P2d 350 (1986); State ex rel Orbanco Real Estate Serv. v. Allen, 301 Or 104, 720 P2d 365 (1986)
����� Where plaintiffs pled �counterclaim� asking for award of attorney fees pursuant to statute in summary judgment appeal, counterclaim constituted separate claim within meaning of rule for purpose of judgment from which plaintiffs could appeal. Swagerty v. Joe Romania Chevrolet, 95 Or App 728, 770 P2d 967 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
����� Where no judgment mentioned cross-claim and last judgment in case did not use language of this section, there was no final judgment on cross-claim, and rent claim in subsequent action was not precluded by res judicata even assuming rent claim could have been brought as cross-claim in former action. Fisher v. Bowman, 97 Or App 357, 776 P2d 575 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
����� Where judgment order failed to dispose of all issues, interest did not accrue from date of entry, because interest is allowable only on valid final judgments. Maduff Mortgage Corp. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 98 Or App 497, 779 P2d 1083 (1989); Butler v. Dept. of Corrections, 138 Or App 190, 909 P2d 163 (1995)
����� This section, and identical Oregon Tax Court Rule 67 B, apply only where one claim for relief has been finally determined. Dept. of Rev. v. Universal Foods Corp., 311 Or 537, 815 P2d 1237 (1991)
����� Court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment disposing of portion of only claim raised by sole plaintiff. Lesch v. DeWitt, 317 Or 585, 858 P2d 872 (1993)
����� Practice allowing seriatim judgments to be considered together for purpose of constituting final judgment does not apply unless each underlying judgment is entered in court register. Patrick v. Otteman, 158 Or App 175, 974 P2d 217 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
����� Complaint asserting single legal theory, even if requesting multiple forms of relief, states single claim for relief. Lindsay v. The Nicewonger Co., Inc., 203 Or App 750, 126 P3d 730 (2006)
����� Where only reference to claim disposition occurs in part of judgment reciting findings, reference is inadequate to indicate intent to dispose of claim. Interstate Roofing, Inc. v. Springville Corp., 217 Or App 412, 177 P3d 1 (2008), modified 220 Or App 671, 188 P3d 359 (2008), modified 224 Or App 94, 197 P3d 27 (2008), overruled on other grounds, 347 Or 144, 218 P3d 113 (2009)
ORCP 67C
����� See also annotations under ORS 18.120 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
����� Authority of court to grant relief even if relief is not demanded in pleading merely allows court in equity case to grant judgment that differs in kind from, or exceeds in amount, that prayed for in demand for judgment. Dry Canyon Farms v. U.S. National Bank of Oregon, 84 Or App 686, 735 P2d 620 (1987)
����� This provision does not forbid jury verdict from exceeding demand. Laursen v. Morris, 103 Or App 538, 799 P2d 648 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
����� If pleadings do not contain claim or demand for money damages, party is not entitled to judgment granting that relief. Cheryl Wilcox Property Management v. Appel, 110 Or App 90, 821 P2d 428 (1991); Rieman v. Swope, 190 Or App 516, 79 P3d 399 (2003)
����� Prohibition against court entering default judgment granting relief different in kind from, or exceeding in amount, relief sought in complaint limits personal jurisdiction of court. Montoya v. Housing Authority of Portland, 192 Or App 408, 86 P3d 80 (2004)
ORCP 67D
����� See annotations under ORS 18.110 in permanent edition.
ORCP 67E
NOTES OF DECISIONS
����� Default judgment obtained by plaintiff against one of three joint obligors was not final judgment under ORCP 67B and, thus, allowing later judgment against remaining obligors did not change substantive �all or none� rule of joint liability. Jefferson State Bank v. Welch, 70 Or App 635, 690 P2d 1107 (1984), aff�d 299 Or 335, 702 P2d 414 (1985)
ORCP 67F
����� See also annotations under ORS 20.030, 26.010 and 26.020 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
����� Stipulated judgment does not create contract between parties. Webber v. Olsen, 330 Or 189, 998 P2d 666 (2000)