ORCP 53

See also annotations under ORS 11.040 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In general

Although court did not have authority to consolidate cases without motion from state or petitioners requesting consolidation, error was harmless where petitions were identical, same attorney was appointed to represent all prisoners and issues and necessary discovery would be the same or nearly the same in each case. Atkeson v. Cupp, 68 Or App 196, 680 P2d 772 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court’s decision to bifurcate furthered purposes of convenience, expedition and economy when order of bifurcation permitted parties to adhere to original trial schedule and obviated need for rescheduling numerous witnesses’ appearances and airplane flights. Bremner v. Charles, 312 Or 274, 821 P2d 1080 (1991)

Where two actions between same parties on same cause are before court so that later-filed action is subject to dismissal under ORCP 21A, court may not consolidate actions. Webb v. Underhill, 174 Or App 592, 27 P3d 148 (2001)

Consolidating cases for trial does not convert multiple cases into single case for purpose of determining finality of judgment. Interstate Roofing, Inc. v. Springville Corp., 217 Or App 412, 177 P3d 1 (2008), modified 220 Or App 671, 188 P3d 359 (2008), modified 224 Or App 94, 197 P3d 27 (2008), overruled on other grounds, 347 Or 144, 218 P3d 113 (2009)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 11.060)

9 WLJ 138-154 (1973); 56 OLR 548 (1977)