ORCP 17

See also annotations under ORS 16.070, 16.080 and 30.350 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

When reviewing sanction, appellate court’s inquiry is whether there is reasonable basis for pleading. Whitaker v. Bank of Newport, 101 Or App 327, 333, 790 P2d 1170 (1990), aff’d on other grounds, 313 Or 450, 836 P2d 695 (1992); Craven v. Shuttle, 117 Or App 37, 843 P2d 500 (1992)

Meaningful review by appellate court requires that trial court make special findings supporting imposition of sanctions. Plere Publishers, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 120 Or App 36, 852 P2d 261 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Subjective good faith of party or lawyer is not relevant where imposition of sanction is based on lack of merit. Seely v. Hanson, 317 Or 476, 857 P2d 121 (1993)

Party may only seek sanctions for violation through motion filed as part of action in which violation took place. Yanney v. Koehler, 147 Or App 269, 935 P2d 1235 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

In deciding whether ambiguous statement in pleading is misleading, court determines intended meaning of statement before determining whether statement is supported by evidence. Sinio v. Bledsoe, 172 Or App 254, 18 P3d 410 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Request of sanctions constitutes demand for assessment of penalty to punish and deter false certifications. Baker and Andrews, 232 Or App 646, 223 P3d 417 (2009)

Request for sanctions is not governed by provisions that set forth procedures for awarding attorney fees. Baker and Andrews, 232 Or App 646, 223 P3d 417 (2009)

Where pleading is superseded prior to filing of motion for sanctions, award of sanctions may not be based on false certifications in superseded pleading. C-Lazy-K Ranch, Inc. v. Alexanderson, 243 Or App 168, ___ P3d ___ (2011)