1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 934 P.2d
  5. 934 P.2d 562 (1997)
 

ANDERSON v. CARDEN

9105-02998, 9105-03051; CA A75835 (Control), CA A75864.

934 P.2d 562 (1997)

146 Or. App. 675

C. Joe ANDERSON and David Morganstern, Plaintiffs, and Jack W. Berkey, Raymond E. Brady, M.E. Bonime, Anthony J. Cortese, Stephen A. Gimbol, Douglas C. Jensen, Roland H. Jensen, Ronald B. Kirkpatrick, Michael L. Klein, William E. Moore, Michael J. Noonan, Donald E. Petersen, Rick Policar, James L. Ponti and Ronald E. Holcolm, Appellants, v. John J. CARDEN, CGKR Investment Capital Corp., Steven Cooper, David Hackett, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bruce A. Kamhoot and John Does I Through X, Defendants, and Leonard DuBoff, Michael Redden, Redden & McGaughey, Yergen & Meyer, Robert L. Vaught and B.L. Hilderbrand, Respondents. William GRAHAM, Appellant, v. John J. CARDEN, CGKR Investment Capital Corp., Steven Cooper, David Hackett, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bruce A. Kamhoot and John Does I Through X, Defendants, and Leonard DuBoff, Michael Redden, Redden & McGaughey, Yergen & Meyer, Robert L. Vaught and B.L. Hilderbrand, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided March 5, 1997.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John W. Stephens, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Esler, Stephens & Buckley.

Joseph C. Arellano, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Leonard DuBoff, Michael Redden and Redden & McGaughey. With him on the brief was Kennedy, King & Zimmer.

John R. Barker, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Yergen & Meyer. With him on the brief were Margaret B. Oslund and Bittner & Barker, P.C.

Gregory P. Lynch, Bend, argued the cause for respondent B.L. Hilderbrand. With him on the brief were William J. Storie and Holmes Hurley Bryant Lovlien & Lynch.

Steven R. Evans, Lake Oswego, filed the brief for respondent Robert L. Vaught.

Before RIGGS, P.J., and LANDAU, J., and BUTTLER, Senior Judge.

LANDAU, Judge.

Plaintiffs initiated this action for securities fraud arising out of their purchase of limited partnership interests in 1983. Defendants1 moved for summary judgment on the ground that the matter is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs responded that their action was timely brought under a different statute of limitations, which allows them to bring the action within two years of discovery of defendants...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases