 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freeman v. Stuart12/14/2005
R>
A "purely legal" contention, as that term is used in this context, refers to one that "does not require the establishment of any predicate facts." Stilwell v. Seibel, 169 Or App 613, 616, 10 P3d 319 (2000). That means that facts are not merely undisputed, but immaterial, such as a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute. Payless Drug Stores, 300 Or at 247.
In this case, defendant's motion for summary judgment did not raise a purely legal contention. It raised the question of the adequacy of service. That question cannot be answered except by reference to predicate facts. Thus, even if defendant were correct that those predicate facts are undisputed, it remains the case that the ultimate issue is not "purely legal." To escape the general rule of unreviewability, the denial of summary judgment must rest on a legal issue that requires no predicate facts at all.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|