Rice v. Rabb, 251 OrApp 603 (2012)

Holding:   The statute of limitations on actions for the taking of personal property does not incorporate a “discovery rule” – staying the running of the clock until the Plaintiff has actual or constructive notice of the injury – if such discovery rule is not expressly included.

1)   Questions of legislative intent are resolved “using the usual methodology set forth in State v. Gaines.” at p. 606.

2)   Fact that this particular statute of limitations, which has no express discovery rule, references one that does, shows that when the legislature intends to include such a rule, it knows how to do so. at pp. 606-07.

3)   Even though the Supreme Court found, by implication, a discovery rule in one of the statutes in the chapter, that doesn’t mean the same is true for all the statutes in the chapter. at p. 608.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!