Jensen v. Hilsboro Law Group, PC

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 09-13-2017
  • Case #: A158221
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must proffer evidence for any issue raised that they would also have the burden of persuasion for at trial. Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 324 (2014).

Plaintiff appealed from the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff assigned error to the court’s determination that there were not genuine issues of fact in the asserted negligence and breach of contract claims. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that a genuine issue of fact existed, and that the lower court was incorrect in its conclusion that an expert witness was required for the purposes of summary judgment. In response, Defendant argues that there was "no dispute of fact 'as to the scope of attorney-client relationship as to the relevant periods of time.’" A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must proffer evidence for any issue raised that he would also have the burden of persuasion for at trial. Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 324 (2014). The Court of Appeals determined that Defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing that Plaintiff "subjectively understood that [D]efendant was not representing him personally." As such, the Court held that there existed a genuine issue of fact, and therefore summary judgment was improper. Reversed and Remanded.

Advanced Search