Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110

Section 12.110 imposes a two-year limitation on actions for fraud, but does not apply to an equitable suit seeking a resulting trust rather than based on fraud.

Kelly v. Tracy · filed 1956-12-19

Turning now to the evidence on the question of laches, we observe that ORS 12.110 is a limitation on actions, not suits. It imposes a two-year limitation on actions for fraud. Assuming that its purview is extended by ORS 12.040 to suits in equity based on fraud, the fact remains that this case is not based on fraud. Pleading and proof establish a resulting and not a constructive trust. ... In our opinion ORS 12.110 is inapplicable.

Section 12.110 requires a fraud or deceit action to be commenced within two years after discovery, and a delayed complaint must specifically plead facts showing diligent discovery and why the limitation does not apply.

Heise v. Pilot Rock Lumber Co. · filed 1960-05-25

Defendant next contends that it appears from the complaint that the action was not commenced within two years from the date the alleged fraud was discovered or could have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence and hence is in violation of OES 12.110, which provides that actions for fraud or deceit must be commenced within two years “from, the discovery of the.fraud or deceit.” ... The rule in this state is now well established that when the complaint is filed after the period provided by the statute, it must negative lack of diligence in the discovery of the fraud and in that regard must specifically and precisely plead the facts showing that the statute of limitations does not apply. ... Further, the exercise of reasonable diligence to discover the fraud is essential. ... When a positive representation is made as to the quantity of land in the absence of special knowledge of other facts and circumstances reasonably calculated to put the misrepresentee on notice, he is not required to make a survey, or in the case of timber, a cruise. ... We are, therefore, of the opinion that defendant’s contentions with respect to the statute of limitations cannot be sustained.

For an action at law based on fraud or deceit, the two-year limitation period begins when the fraud or deceit is discovered, meaning when it was known or could have been discovered through reasonable care.

Salem Sand & Gravel Company v. City of Salem · filed 1971-12-30(1)

Under OBS 12.110(1), an action at law for fraud and deceit must be commenced within two years from the “discovery of the fraud or deceit.” “Discovery” means from the time the fraud was known or could have been discovered through exercise of reasonable care.

Section 12.110(1) supplies the two-year limitations period for SEC Rule 10b-5 actions in Oregon, with accrual upon actual discovery of fraud or when a reasonably prudent person should have discovered it.

Hoffert v. E. F. Hinkle & Co. · filed 1972-08-18(1)

The two year period of limitations in ORS 12.110(1) is subject to a proviso: “the limitation shall be deemed to commence only from the discovery of the fraud or deceit.” ... The adoption of ORS 12.110 as the applicable Oregon statute of limitations would be consistent with the policy expressed in prior Ninth Circuit decisions. I conclude that in SEC Rule 10b-5 cases in Oregon the proper statute of limitations to apply is the two year period of ORS 12.110. I further con-elude, as a matter of federal law, that the claim accrues and the period of limitations starts to run either upon actual discovery of the fraud, or at such time as a reasonably prudent person, similarly situated, should have discovered the fraud.

Section 12.110(1) gives a two-year limitations period for fraud or deceit claims, beginning when the fraud is actually known or could have been discovered through reasonable care.

Winkelman v. Blyth & Co., Inc. · filed 1973-08-31(1)

There is no federal statute of limitations applicable to the remaining claims. It is now clear that the Oregon statute of limitations under ORS 12.-110(1) is to be applied. The two-year period is subject to the proviso that the limitation shall be deemed to commence only from the discovery of the fraud or deceit.

Section 12.110 requires fraud-or-deceit actions to be filed within two years after the fraud is discovered or could have been discovered through reasonable diligence, and whether that occurred is a factual question.

Equitable Life & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Virgil N. Lee, Equitable Life & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Margaret L. Pagett · filed 1962-11-14

the fraud could have been discovered. ... However, the question is a factual one.

Section 12.110(1)'s discovery-based limitations rule applies to fraud or deceit claims, not to negligent-misrepresentation claims treated as negligence.

Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District · filed 1987-09-22(1)

As stated, the plaintiffs have not asserted, here, in the Court of Appeals or in the trial court, that ORS 12.110(1), the deceit statute of limitations, applies. Though a damage claim for negligent misrepresentation involves a misrepresentation, we believe that the theory of recovery is in negligence rather than deceit.

For a fraud or deceit action, the two-year limitation period begins when the fraud is discovered, meaning when the plaintiff learns of the misrepresentation or has facts sufficient to require inquiry; whether the facts require inquiry is generally for the factfinder.

McGann v. Boyd · filed 1993-11-03(1)

The statute of limitations begins to run on a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation when the fraud is “discovered.” ORS 12.110. A fraud is discovered when the plaintiff either learns of the misrepresentation or has knowledge of facts sufficient to excite attention and put a party on guard or call for an inquiry. Mathies v. Hoeck, 284 Or 539, 542-43, 588 P2d 1 (1978). Whether a person has sufficient knowledge to call for an inquiry is ordinarily a question of fact, unless only one conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Mathies v. Hoeck, supra.

Section 12.110(1) requires actions for personal injuries arising from negligence, rather than from contract, to be commenced within two years.

Dowell v. Mossberg · filed 1961-02-21(1)

OES 12.110 (1) applies the two-year period of limitations to actions for injuries to the person “not arising on contract.” ... Plaintiff alleged the contract as a matter of inducement, and the balance of her pleading was for damages for negligence. ... The substance of her complaint was injury to her person through negligence and nothing more. The action should have been brought within the two-year period provided for actions based upon negligence.

Section 12.110 imposes a two-year limitation period on actions based on common-law torts.

Hoffman v. Keller · filed 1961-04-25

This court has determined that the gist of plaintiff’s action is based upon alleged common-law tortious acts of the defendants and that therefore the Oregon statute3 providing for a two-year limitation of such actions is controlling.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on actions for injury to another’s rights that do not arise on contract and are not otherwise enumerated.

Hyatt Chalet Motels, Inc. v. Salem Building & Construction Trades Council · filed 1968-10-22(1)

Under normal circumstances, the two year statute of limitations would be applicable to actions under § 303.

Section 12.110(1) bars a personal-injury action when service on the Administrator is not accomplished within the statute’s two-year period.

Peterson v. Day · filed 1978-09-12(1)

Because plaintiff did not serve the Administrator within the two years allowed by ORS 12.110(1), the plaintiffs action is barred.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitation on residual injury actions that do not arise on contract, but it does not convert a contract-breach claim into a tort claim merely because the same conduct could independently be tortious.

Securities-Intermountain, Inc. v. Sunset Fuel Co. · filed 1980-06-03(1)

Given the need under ORS 12.080 and 12.110 to characterize an action commenced after two years as either contractual or noncontractual, Dowell v. Mossberg and its sequels were concerned to forestall the transformation of actions based on liability independent of any specific agreement into actions for breach of contract for the sole purpose of circumventing the two-year limitation of ORS 12.110. Still, contracting parties are free to specify services and standards of performance that may overlap noncontractual obligations. ORS 12.110 certainly does not contemplate that a defendant can defeat an action for breach of his contract by asserting that, independent of the contract, his own conduct constituted a tort, whether negligence or, for instance, fraud.

Section 12.110(1) applies only when an action neither arises on contract nor falls within another statute specifically enumerating the action.

Beveridge v. King · filed 1982-04-06(1)

In order for the part of ORS 12.110(1) with which we are here concerned to control disposition of an action, two factors must be present: (1) the action must not be one “arising on contract” and (2) the action must be “not especially enumerated in this chapter [12].”

Section 12.110(1) requires an action for an injury to another's person or rights, when not arising on contract or specially enumerated elsewhere in the chapter, to be commenced within two years.

Morrison v. Ardee Pest Control, Inc. · filed 1983-04-13(1)

Thus, the property was not injured by defendant’s conduct; it was injured by the dry rot.1 Neither was there an injury to plaintiffs’ interest in the property. The injury caused by the allegedly negligent inspection was to plaintiffs’ pocketbook. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs’ negligence count is barred by ORS 12.110(1).

Subsection (1) requires actions for personal injury not arising on contract or otherwise specially enumerated to be commenced within two years; an insurer's agreement to allow more time waives its limitations defense temporarily but does not create a new statutory limitations period.

Johnson v. Kentner · filed 1984-11-21(1)

The applicable limitation in this case is two years, provided in ORS 12.110(1): ... “An action * * * for any injury to the person or rights of ... another, not arising on contract, and not especially enumerated in this chapter, shall be commenced within two years * * * ... Neither of Mutual’s decisions to allow plaintiff additional time in which to file an action created a new Statute of Limitations; that is a function reserved for the legislature. Although Mutual may have mischaracterized its action as “extending” the Statute of Limitations, the legal effect of that action was no more than a waiver of its right to assert the limitation as an affirmative defense until the stated date.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on noncontractual actions for injury to another’s rights, including fiduciary-duty claims arising independently of contract.

Sabre Farms, Inc. v. Jordan · filed 1986-04-09(1)

In this case, plaintiff claims that all of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by usurpation of alleged corporate opportunities and by self-dealing. Those duties are binding by reason of the relationships between the parties, independently of contract. Therefore, under SecuritiesIntermountain, the two-year limitation would apply.

Section 12.110(1) requires an action for an injury to a person or another's rights, when not arising on contract or otherwise specifically enumerated, to be commenced within two years.

Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies Corp. · filed 1987-05-27(1)

We conclude that ORS 30.905 is not applicable and that ORS 12.110(1) and 12.115(1) are applicable. There is no dispute that plaintiff brought its action within the time limitations of these latter statutes.

Subsection (1) supplies the two-year limitation period that governs personal injury actions sounding in tort.

Jones v. Bierek · filed 1987-10-21(1)

Her action is in tort and is accordingly governed by the two-year limitation in ORS 12.110.

Section 12.110(1) requires a negligence action to be filed within two years after damage first occurs, even if the full extent of the damage is not yet identifiable.

DeJonge v. Mutual of Enumclaw · filed 1988-04-20(1)

Similarly here, plaintiffs were aware that Keesecker had not procured the insurance which they had requested and that, as a result, they hired an attorney to protect their interests. That decision was reasonable in the light of Keesecker’s alleged negligence. It was at that time that their damage occurred. The statute began to run no later than January, 1984, when they had notice that the insurance procured by Keesecker was inadequate to cover liquor liability and they retained the first attorney. This action was not filed until June 6,1986, which was beyond the two-year limitation period for filing a negligence action. ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) requires an action for personal injury or injury to another’s rights, when not arising on contract or otherwise specially enumerated, to be commenced within two years.

Richlick v. Relco Equipment, Inc. · filed 1993-05-12(1)

ORCP 23C requires that the defendant receive notice of the action “within the period provided by law for commencing the action.” The stipulated facts show that, at the time defendant received notice of the action, the limitation period of ORS 12.110(1) had run, but the time for service of summons and complaint had not. ORS 12.020(2). Plaintiff would have us interpret ORCP 23C to permit relation back if the defendant receives notice within the limitation period plus the additional 60 days permitted by ORS 12.020 for service of summons. For purposes of relation back under ORCP 23C, the party to be brought in must have received notice of the action within the period of limitations for the particular action. ... In this case, that is two years from the injury. ORS 12.110(1). Defendant did not receive notice of the action until, at the earliest, September 24,1990, when Rusina sent a facsimile copy of the complaint to Bachman. That was two days after the limitation period had passed. It did not receive the notice required by ORCP 23C.

Section 12.110(1) requires claims for injury to the person or rights of another to be commenced within two years, with fraud claims measured from discovery of the fraud.

Stull v. Hoke · filed 1996-05-22(1)

In order to survive the applicable statute of limitations, plaintiffs claims for infliction of emotional distress and conversion must have been brought within two years of the date of the alleged injury, May 22,1994. ORS 12.110(1). Similarly, plaintiff’s claim of fraud must be brought within two years of the discovery of the fraudulent acts. ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.110 imposes a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, and filing on the second anniversary of the injury is timely even when an intervening leap year occurs.

Kowalski v. L'Oasis · filed 2003-10-22

Plaintiff’s claim was subject to the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims. See ORS 12.110. After the trial court dismissed the action, we held in Neff v. Jackson County, 187 Or App 402, 408, 67 P3d 977 (2003), that the word “year,” as used in a statute of limitations, refers to a calendar year, not a 365-day period. We therefore rejected the defendant’s argument in that case that the plaintiff’s complaint, filed on the anniversary of the accrual of her cause of action, nevertheless was time barred because of an intervening leap year. Id. Neff disposes of defendants’ argument that the original complaint in this action was untimely filed. Because the original complaint was filed within the applicable two-year limitations period, the dispositive issue is whether plaintiffs failure to serve defendants with summonses and copies of that complaint required dismissal of this action.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitation period for personal-injury claims, subject to tolling under ORS 12.160 for qualifying disability.

Simonsen v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2004-12-08(1)

As also described above, the generic two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, ORS 12.110(1), may be tolled by operation of ORS 12.160, allowing a plaintiff a maximum of seven years after the date of the injury to commence an appropriate action.

Section 12.110(1) requires a personal-injury action to be filed within two years, with the period running under Oregon’s discovery rule when the plaintiff knew or should have known of harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Cecil Smith v. Evraz Inc. Na · filed 2018-06-04(1)

Oregon’s statute of limitations for a personal injury action provides that “[a]n action for . . . any injury to the person . . . shall be commenced within two years[.]” Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1). ... Because Smith’s complaint was not filed until almost four years from the date of injury, this court is not persuaded that he “exercised due diligence to discover the requisite facts.” ... Accordingly, the court concludes as a matter of law that any rational juror would find that Smith knew or should have known of a substantial possibility that EVRAZ was a responsible party more than two years before he filed suit.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for Oregon personal-injury actions.

Jackson v. Nelson · filed 2021-07-02(1)

The statute of limitations for personal-injury actions in Oregon is two years. Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, running from the date the cause of action accrues, subject to applicable tolling.

A.F. v. Evans · filed 2021-09-17(1)

In Oregon, the applicable statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is two years from the date upon which the cause of action accrues. Id.; ORS 12.110(1).

Subsection (1) supplies a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims.

Ljubich v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2023-04-27(1)

In Oregon, the statute of limitations for a section 1983 lawsuit is two years. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (section 1983 claims are “characterized as personal injury suits for statute of limitations purposes,” and “Oregon’s statute of limitations for such suits is two years”) (citing ORS § 12.110(1)). ... Therefore, any alleged injuries that arose prior to March 2, 2019, are barred by the two-year statutes of limitations that apply to plaintiff’s tort claims, see ORS § 30.275(9), and his § 1983 claim, see ORS § 12.110(1).

ORS 12.110(1)'s two-year limitation does not control a civil action based on conduct constituting child abuse when ORS 12.117 applies.

Levi v. Chapman · filed 2023-05-12(1)

As this is a civil matter, and Defendants plead a civil claim for battery against Raygosa based on the rape of a minor, the controlling statute is ORS 12.117. That statute provides that, notwithstanding ORS 12.110 (which Plaintiff alleges is the controlling statute), civil actions based on conduct that constitutes child abuse must be commenced before the victim attains 40 years of age.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on personal-injury claims under Oregon law.

Addison v. City of Baker City · filed 2018-11-16(1)

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims under Oregon law is two years. Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1). The alleged conduct that gave rise to Addison’s First Amendment retaliation claim “included the conversations that Lohner had with [Addison’s employers], the later allegedly harassing conduct by the BCPD, and the BCPD’s purported involvement in preparing and providing Addison’s [fact file] to New Directions,” all of which occurred within the two-year statute of limitations period.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions, including § 1983 claims in Oregon.

Glass v. Lake County · filed 2020-06-10(1)

In Oregon, an action under § 1983 is governed by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.110 supplies a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, subject to Oregon’s discovery rule when applied to § 1983 claims.

The Puff Factory, LLC v. Port of Cascade Locks · filed 2020-11-06

In Oregon, the personal injury limitations period is two years. Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110. Defendants argue that this limitations period began to run in 2016 when Plaintiffs had the opportunity to but did not engage in discovery during the State Litigation. Oregon’s discovery rule, however, also applies to claims asserted under § 1983. Thus, the relevant limitations period begins, or accrues, either when the discriminatory conduct occurred or when the plaintiff learns of, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have learned of, previously undiscovered facts supporting a discrimination claim, whichever occurs later. See Bonneau v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 28J, 666 F.3d 577, 581 (9th Cir. 2012).

Section 12.110(1)'s two-year residual personal-injury limitations period applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Wilson v. State of Oregon · filed 2021-08-25(1)

The residual statute is ORS § 12.110(1),4 which establishes a two-year statute of limitations. See Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, including as the borrowed Oregon limitations period for federal claims.

L.O.K v. Greater Albany Public School District 8J · filed 2022-06-28(1)

For claims under § 1983 and Title IX, federal courts borrow the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. ... “In Oregon, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years,” borrowing the statute of limitations from ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year limitations period for an emotional-distress claim.

Szanto v. Szanto · filed 2024-01-03(1)

Szanto’s emotional distress claim is similarly barred, since under both Oregon and California law the statute of limitations is two years. See CCP 335.1; ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies as Oregon’s borrowed limitations period to federal civil-rights claims.

Robert Parker, Jr. v. Barlow · filed 2024-07-03(1)

and “federal civil rights claims under sections 1981 [and] 1983” are “governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.” ... In Oregon, the limitations period for personal injury actions is two years. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1); see also Bonneau v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 28J, 666 F.3d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Oregon has a two-year statute of limitations for general personal injury claims . . .”) (citation omitted).

Section 12.110(1) requires personal-injury claims to be commenced within two years of the injury.

Foshee v. Lane County · filed 2024-08-26(1)

Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations, Ninth Circuit courts apply the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F. 3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014). In Oregon, personal injury claims must be commenced within two years of the injury. See ORS § 12.110(1). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are thus subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 12.110(1) requires Oregon personal-injury claims to be commenced within two years after the injury.

Monpas v. Multnomah County · filed 2024-09-09(1)

Personal-injury claims in Oregon must be commenced within two years of the injury. Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1). ... The last events that form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims occurred no later than July 15, 2021, when Plaintiff was seen by MCDC medical staff and transported to the hospital for treatment. Accordingly, the limitations period for Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims expired July 15, 2023.

Section 12.110(1) requires personal injury claims to be filed within two years.

Jason v. Adobe, Inc. · filed 2025-01-10(1)

Under Oregon law, personal injury claims have a two-year statute of limitations. Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1). ... The allegations set forth in the complaint occurred on or before September 2021, meaning that under the applicable statute of limitations, the personal injury claims should have been filed no later than September 2023. ... Because the undisputed timeline reflects that plaintiff's intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are time-barred, they are dismissed.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury torts, including § 1983 claims characterized as personal injury actions.

Lincoln v. Sweet Home Fire & Ambulance District · filed 2025-05-02(1)

Claims brought under § 1983 are characterized as personal injury actions. Wilson, 471 U.S. at 261. Oregon has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury torts. ORS 12.110(1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Third Claim has a two-year statute of limitations period.

Section 12.110(1) requires personal-injury claims to be commenced within two years of the injury.

Ofodrinwa v. Kizzar · filed 2024-07-23(1)

Under Oregon law personal-injury claims must be commenced within two years of the injury.

Section 12.110 supplies Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims, including federal civil-rights claims when no federal limitations period applies.

Washington v. City of Lake Oswego · filed 2024-08-30

For Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the Court applies Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claim set forth in ORS § 12.110.

Section 12.110 provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, including claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Rose v. Pina · filed 2025-02-03

Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in Oregon Revised Statute § (“ORS”) 12.110 applies to claims brought under Section 1983.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.

Reyes v. City of Hillsboro, Or · filed 2025-02-24(1)

The district court properly dismissed Reyes’s action as time-barred because Reyes failed to file this action within the applicable statutes of limitations. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (providing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); ... Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 823 n.11 (9th Cir. 2001) (same for Rehabilitation Act claims).

Section 12.110 establishes a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, including injuries arising from medical treatment or its omission.

Boyd v. Reyes · filed 2025-07-03

Oregon's statute of limitations for personal injuries, including for injuries arising from medical treatment or omission of treatment, is two years.

Section 12.110 provides a two-year limitations period that serves as Oregon’s general or residual personal-injury limitations period for a § 1983 claim.

Kruesi v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2025-07-09

Here, the Court must apply the two-year statute of limitations from Oregon’s general personal injury statute, ORS 12.110, to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Section 12.110(4) requires an action for injuries arising from medical, surgical, or dental treatment, omission, or operation to be filed within two years after the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.

DeRaedt v. La Clinica · filed 2025-07-28(4)

This claim is outside the applicable statute of limitations, as Plaintiff’s case was filed more than two years after his alleged injury. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(4) (“An action to recover damages for injuries to the person arising from any medical, surgical or dental treatment, omission or operation shall be commenced within two years from the date when the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered”); see also Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of California, 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) (federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for general personal-injury claims.

Evers v. McKinney · filed 2025-09-29(1)

“Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations.” ... “Federal courts in § 1983 actions apply the state statute of limitations from personal-injury claims.” ... Oregon has a two-year statute of limitations for general personal injury claims. Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, running from the injury or discovery of the injury.

DeBernardi · filed 2026-04-01(1)

As relevant here, the statute of limitations for all of Plaintiff’s claims is two years. See ... ORS 12.110(1) (Oregon’s personal injury statute of limitations is two years from the date of injury, or discovery of such injury); ... . ... Plaintiff’s contention is incorrect. ... To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are based on conduct that occurred more than two years before he filed his Complaint, those claims are time-barred and are dismissed.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and that limitation applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Cooper v. City of Ashland Brian Almquist Vic Lively Mel Clements John Does I-V · filed 1989-05-11(1)

Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions, including section 1983 actions in Oregon.

Lane v. Art Martinak · filed 1991-12-11(1)

In Oregon, the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to section 1983 actions.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitation period for commencing a personal-injury action.

Stanwood v. Royster · filed 1996-03-25(1)

Oregon law provides for a two-year limitation period to commence an action for personal injury.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions, which the court applies to determine the timeliness of a § 1983 claim.

Plumeau v. School District 40 · filed 1997-12-04(1)

Oregon’s general tort statute provides a 2-year statute of limitations. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1). The district court in this ease apparently assumed a timely filing. We agree, since the date of discovery was May 29,1992, shortly following Amanda’s attempted suicide. The action was filed on May 20,1994.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on personal-injury claims arising in Oregon.

Pelster Ex Rel. Boyer v. Walker · filed 2001-08-20(1)

Personal injury claims arising in Oregon are subject to a two-year statute of limitations under Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) requires a battery action to be commenced within two years.

Robert C. Torre Sherrill M. Polk v. James R. Brickey, Jr. · filed 2002-01-24(1)

Oregon Revised Statutes § 12.110(1) requires an action for battery to be commenced within two years.

Section 12.110 limits the time to bring a personal injury action to two years.

Wheeler v. Williams · filed 1955-01-30

The time for the commencement of this action was limited to two years. ORS 12.110.

Section 12.110 provides a two-year limitation period for personal injury claims; a newly added defendant must receive notice within that period for an amended complaint to relate back.

Krauel v. Dykers Corp. · filed 2001-04-04

That phrase in ORCP 23 refers to the limitation period in ORS 12.110 and not to the grace period for service in ORS 12.020.

Section 12.110(1) sets a two-year limit for personal injury actions, including § 1983 claims brought in Oregon.

Ball v. State of Oregon · filed 2010-03-09(1)

The district court properly determined that Ball’s due process claim is time- barred. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (statute of limitations governing personal injury actions is two years); Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara, 344 F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The applicable statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.”); Montana Pole & Treating Plant v. I.F. Laucks & Co., 993 F.2d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he critical determination of when an action accrues is knowledge of the facts essential to the cause of action.”).

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims.

Deal v. Dasch · filed 2023-03-30(1)

The statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims is two years. See City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal. v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 123 n. 5 (2005) (“The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is generally the applicable state-law period for personal-injury torts”); see also Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (imposing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims).

Section 12.110 gives fraud actions a two-year limitations period running from when the fraud was known or could have been discovered with reasonable care; it bars affirmative counterclaim recovery but does not bar recoupment arising from the same matter to the extent of the plaintiff’s claim.

Dixon Et Ux v. Schoonover Et Ux · filed 1961-03-15

Our statute of limitations, ORS 12.110, provides that an action at law for fraud and deceit must be commenced within two years from the “discovery of the fraud or deceit.” ... “Discovery of the fraud or deceit” means from the time the fraud was known or could have been discovered through the exercise of' reasonable care. ... When the pleading discloses that the action was not commenced within the two years provided by the statute, it is necessary, in order to toll the statute, to negative lack of diligence and set forth the reasons why there was not an earlier discovery of the fraud. ... The rule for applying the statute of limitations to actions based on fraud applies to counterclaims where it is sought to obtain affirmative relief. However, recoupment arising out of the same matter can be allowed to the extent of the relief demanded by plaintiffs on their first cause of action even though an independent action conld not be maintained because of tbe statute.

For an action based on fraud or deceit, the two-year limitations period begins when the fraud or deceit is discovered; when discovery and reasonable diligence are disputed, the issue is for the jury.

Carey v. Hays · filed 1967-11-22(1)

In an action at law based on fraud or deceit, the two-year limitation shall be deemed to commence only from the discovery of the fraud or deceit. ORS 12.110 (1). ... Where the evidence is in conflict, it is for the trier of the fact to determine when the statute of limitations commences to run. Carey v. Hays, supra. In the instant case the evidence of reasonable diligence and time of discovery was in conflict. The issue was properly submitted to and decided by the jury.

Under ORS 12.110, the two-year fraud limitation period begins when the plaintiff knew or objectively should have known of the fraud; inquiry notice requires knowledge sufficient to prompt attention and a reasonably diligent inquiry that would disclose the fraud.

Mathies v. Hoeck · filed 1978-12-19

Consequently, the period of limitations for fraud begins to run when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged fraud.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitation period for injury claims and, for fraud or deceit, starts the period when the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered.

Loewen v. Galligan · filed 1994-09-14(1)

The applicable statute of limitations is ORS 12.110(1), which provides, in part: ... “An action * * * for any injury to * * * the rights of another* * *shallbe two years, provided, that in an action at law based upon fraud or deceit, the limitation shall be deemed to commence only from the discovery of the fraud * * *” ... The statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1) begins to run when a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the alleged fraud. ... We have already concluded that plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the facts on which the first claim was based no later than August 2,1988. That conclusion is equally applicable to plaintiffs’ fourth claim. Plaintiffs had two years from August 3, 1988, in which to file a claim alleging fraud based on the 1984 transactions. ... plaintiffs’ fraud claim does not relate back to their original complaint and is barred by the statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1).

Subsection (1) gives a fraud plaintiff two years to sue from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged fraud.

Blackthorne v. Posner · filed 1995-03-28(1)

Third, the statute of limitations for a fraud claim is two years from the date “when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged fraud.”

For a fraud or deceit action, the two-year limitation period begins when the plaintiff learns of the misrepresentation or of facts sufficient to prompt a reasonable inquiry that would reveal the fraud.

Bodunov v. Kutsev · filed 2007-08-01(1)

A fraud is discovered when a plaintiff learns either of the misrepresentation itself or of facts sufficient to “excite attention and put [the plaintiff on] guard or call for an inquiry,” if reasonable inquiry would then reveal the fraud. ... Thus, in order for defendants to prevail, the face of the complaint must reveal that plaintiffs brought their claim more than two years from the time that they learned of the misrepresentation or of facts sufficient to excite their attention and call for an inquiry.

For a fraud action, the two-year limitation period begins when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should discover, facts indicating harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Murphy v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2012-07-25(1)

To determine when a fraud claim accrues, ORS 12.110(1) incorporates a discovery rule, which operates in conjunction with the general claim-accrual principle that applies to all claims — viz., that a claim accrues when all of the facts exist that the plaintiff must prove in order to recover on the claim. ... The discovery rule in ORS 12.110(1) creates the following disjunctive test for fraud-claim accrual: a fraud claim accrues when the plaintiff has discovered facts or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered facts that would alert a reasonable person to the existence of the three elements of an actionable injury, which are (1) harm, (2) causation, and (3) tortious conduct — viz., the alleged fraud. ... Therefore, we conclude that the determination whether plaintiff should have discovered that he had suffered an actionable injury as a result of Gould’s allegedly fraudulent statements is one that must be made by the jury, and, accordingly, the court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s claim was not timely.

For fraud or deceit actions, § 12.110(1)'s limitations period begins when the fraud is discovered, meaning when the plaintiff knew or should have known of it after sufficient facts prompted a reasonably diligent inquiry.

Puri v. Khalsa · filed 2017-01-06(1)

The defendants argue the plaintiffs’ fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Lane Powell and Horowitz are untimely under Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations governing fraud claims. That limitations period is subject to a discovery rule. See ORS 12.110(1) (“[I]n an action at law based upon fraud or deceit, the limitation shall be deemed to commence only from the discovery of the fraud.”); Bell v. Benjamin, 222 P.3d 741, 744 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (“For purposes of that statute, a plaintiff ‘discovers’ the fraud ‘when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged fraud.’ ‘Whether the plaintiff should have known of the alleged fraud depends on a two-step analysis. First, it must appear that plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to excite attention and put a party upon his guard or call for an inquiry.’ ‘If plaintiff had such knowledge, it must also appear that a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose the fraud.’” (citations omitted) (quoting Mathies v. Hoeck, 588 P.2d 1, 2-3 (Or. 1978))).

Section 12.110 requires a fraud action to be filed within two years of discovery; a complaint filed after that period must plead facts excusing the delay in discovering the fraud.

Heard v. COFFEY · filed 1959-10-07

ORS 12.110 provides that an action at law for fraud or deceit must be commenced within two years from the discovery of the fraud or deceit. ... The plaintiff’s complaint in this case does not show any excuse for the delay in bringing this action. The circuit court properly determined the issue as a matter of law and sustained the demurrer. The complaint, on its face, showed that the statute of limitations had run before it was filed, and no facts were pleaded to toll the statute.

Section 12.110(1) requires an action for an injury to a person or another's rights, not arising on contract and not specially enumerated, to be commenced within two years.

Hoffman v. Wair · filed 1961-04-25(1)

So, it must follow under the above definition of “a liability created by statute” that any liability on the part of either of the defendants in favor of the plaintiff under the allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint arises from a breach of the defendants’ common-law duties to the plaintiff, and not from a duty otherwise created and imposed by the language of Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. So far as this case and plaintiff’s alleged grievances are concerned, Title 28 U.S. C.A. § 1343 and Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, are merely procedural and remedial vehicles to carry plaintiff’s instant action through federal law and court institution, prosecution and enforcement. See Monroe v. Pape, 1961, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this Court that the two-year limitation imposed by ORS 12.110, supra, is controlling in this case.

Section 12.110 describes damages actions for injury to a person or another’s rights that do not arise on contract, including tort actions against public bodies or employees for purposes of ORS 12.160’s minority tolling rule.

Bradford v. Davis · filed 1981-04-21

An action for damages for an alleged tort, or more compendiously "for any injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract,” ORS 12.110, is one of those "mentioned in ORS... 12.070 to 12.160”; and a person entitled to bring such an action therefore comes within ORS 12.160, notwithstanding that his particular action is against a public body or public employee.

Section 12.110(1) covers tort actions for injury to a person or another’s rights that are not based on contract and are not specifically enumerated in chapter 12.

Kearney v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. · filed 1982-01-25(1)

ORS 12.110 by its express language excludes from its purview only actions “for any injury to the person” arising from contract or especially enumerated in ORS chapter 12. This action for product liability is a tort action which is not enumerated in ORS chapter 12. By the literal language of ORS 12.160 and 12.110(1), the statute of limitations is tolled during the minority of the plaintiff, and we find no other basis for holding that ORS 12.160 does not toll the two-year limitations period provided in ORS 30.905(2).

Subsection (1) covers actions for injury to a person or another's rights when the injury does not arise from contract, including injuries to rights other than personal injuries.

Gregory v. Lovlien · filed 2001-06-06(1)

The question, however, in Davies was whether the statute of limitations set out in ORS 12.080(4) or in ORS 12.110(1) applied to legal malpractice claims. ... Conversely, the fact that the Dawes court held that the statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1) applies to a legal malpractice claim does not advance defendant’s argument. That statute of limitations applies to an action “for any injury to the person or rights of another, not arising out of contract.” By its terms, ORS 12.110(1) is not limited to personal injury claims but also applies when other rights are injured.

Section 12.110(1) supplies the limitations period for actions for injury to a person or another's rights when the action does not arise on contract and is not otherwise enumerated in chapter 12.

Waldner v. Stephens · filed 2008-12-31(1)

The common-law negligence claim that we already have identified in plaintiffs’ complaint does not rely on the ORLTA as direct authority in the sense we have described. It is not subject to the statute of limitations set out at ORS 12.125 but, instead, is limited by the statute of limitations for actions for “an injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract and not especially enumerated in [ORS chapter 12].” ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1)'s limitations period is suspended for a counterclaim arising from the complaint's transaction when the counterclaim existed and was not barred when the action was filed.

Lewis v. Merrill · filed 1961-10-25(1)

The action is governed by the two-year statute of limitations, ORS 12.110 (1), and would have been barred after March 27, 1960. ... Others cannot be distinguished, but, in our opinion, the better rule is that where a counterclaim arises out of the transaction alleged in the complaint and is in existence at the time that the complaint is filed and is not then barred by a statute of limitations, it will not be barred by the running of the statutory time thereafter, but the statute will be suspended until the counterclaim is filed.

Section 12.110's two-year period does not apply merely because a statutory liability causes an injury to another's person or rights; a statutory liability is not thereby excluded from the six-year limitations period.

Hyatt Chalet Motels, Inc. v. Carpenters Local 1065; Reimann Construction Co. v. Carpenters Local 1065 · filed 1970-07-29

The last area of discussion involves the Unions' contention that if § 303 is considered to be "a liability created by statute", this court should recognize that the § 303 remedy is "also `for any injury to the person or rights of another'". The Unions then say that since § 303 could thus be contained within either the 2-year statute or the 6-year statute, or both, we must hold that § 303 is governed by the 2-year statute since the 6-year statute excepts those actions "mentioned in ORS 12.110 [the 2-year statute]". As Hyatt points out, every statutory liability covers an "injury to the person or rights of another". Acceptance of the Unions' logic on this point would completely vitiate the 6-year statute.

Section 12.110's two-year limitations period does not govern conversion claims asserted as offsets in this action; ORS 12.080(4) applies instead.

DeCicco v. Uniroyal Inc. · filed 1968-10-24

ORS 12.080(4) is, in my opinion, the applicable statute.

For a fraud action, the two-year limitation period begins when the plaintiff knew or, through reasonable care, should have known of the fraud.

Kinyon v. Cardon · filed 1984-08-29

We conclude that as a matter of law plaintiff, in the exercise of reasonable care, could have discovered in the fall of 1979 or winter of 1979-80 that the conditions of the property were not as represented.

Section 12.110(a) provides a two-year statute of limitations for common-law fraud claims in Oregon.

Nudo v. McNeil · filed 1988-12-08(a)

In Oregon, the federal court applies the two-year statute of limitations for common law fraud (ORS 12.110(a)).

For breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims subject to ORS 12.110, the two-year limitation period begins when the claimant knows or reasonably should know that the fiduciary's wrongful conduct caused damage.

Thompson v. Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. · filed 1994-09-14

The limitation period for breach of fiduciary duty claims does not begin to run until the party asserting the claim knows or reasonably should know that he or she has been damaged by the fiduciary’s wrongful conduct.

Section 12.110(1) gives IIED claims a two-year statute of limitations, so conduct occurring more than two years before filing is not actionable.

Amadi v. Conagra Foods, Inc. · filed 2012-07-27(1)

Under Oregon law, an IIED claim is subject to a two year statute of limitations. ORS 12.110(1); see also Campbell, 783 F.Supp.2d at 1157. Because Amadi filed his lawsuit on July 18, 2011, any comments *1242allegedly causing his emotional distress must have occurred after July 18, 2009, to be actionable.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for Oregon personal-injury claims.

Higuera v. City of Portland · filed 2020-05-08(1)

Federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 borrow the statute of limitations from the state law statute of limitations for personal injury claims. See Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 371 (2004) (§ 1981); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (§ 1983). Oregon’s personal injury statute of limitations is two years. ORS § 12.110(1). Plaintiff filed his original complaint on March 23, 2018. Accordingly, he may assert federal claims only for hiring decisions by Defendants on or after March 23, 2016.

Section 12.110 supplies Oregon’s two-year limitations period for § 1983 personal-injury actions, measured from accrual.

French v. Roberts · filed 2023-09-14

In Oregon, the applicable statute of limitations for a § 1983 action is two years from the date that the cause of action accrues. Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110.

Section 12.110(1) gives negligence claims a two-year statute of limitations.

Doe v. Kosicek · filed 2025-06-27(1)

The Court notes that the statue of limitations for negligence in Oregon is two years. ORS § 12.110(1). Any claim for negligence based on the conduct alleged in the complaint is time barred.

Section 12.110 supplies a two-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, subject to tolling for up to five years while the plaintiff is a minor.

Frank v. Kotek · filed 2025-07-17

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, ORS § 12.117, which tolls the limitations period for victims of child abuse until the age of 40, does not apply. Under Bonneau, ORS §§ 12.110 and 12.160 apply, meaning there was a two-year statute of limitations that was tolled for up to five years because Plaintiff was a minor. This means that Plaintiff was required to file his § 1983 claims by March of 2023 at the latest.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions, which governs § 1983 claims in Oregon.

Quinones-Miranda v. Inmate Services Unit · filed 2025-08-28(1)

Oregon has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. ORS § 12.110(1). Accordingly, a § 1983 action in Oregon must be brought within two years after the allegedly wrongful conduct.

Section 12.110 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions in Oregon.

Hart · filed 2026-02-19

For § 1983 claims, federal courts look to the applicable state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims. ... Oregon has a two-year time limit for personal injury actions. ORS § 12.110; J.M. v. Oregon Youth Authority, 364 Or. 232, 236 (2019).

Section 12.110 provides Oregon's two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions, which governs § 1981 claims when no federal limitations period applies.

Taye Addisu Mokhtar Al-Saeed Ghassan Abu Hemdeh v. Fred Meyer, Inc., a Delaware Corporation · filed 2000-01-04

Because there is no specifically stated or otherwise relevant federal statute of limitations for a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Supreme Court teaches that we must utilize the most analogous state statute of limitations, Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660-661, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987), and that § 1981 claims are governed by the state statute of limitations governing personal injury actions. 482 U.S. at 661-662, 107 S.Ct. 2617. Because Oregon’s statute of limitations for personal injury is two years, Appellant’s claims are subject to the two-year statute of limitations. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110.

Section 12.110 provides a two-year limitations period for torts to a person, while claims involving injury to personal property fall under the six-year period in ORS 12.080(4).

Teren v. Howard · filed 1963-09-04

We think it clear that ORS 12.110 with its 2 year period applies to torts to a person and that ORS 12.080(4) with a 6 year period applies in this case.

Section 12.110(1) requires a professional-malpractice action to be filed within two years, with the period beginning when the harm occurs and it becomes reasonably probable that the damage was caused by the defendant's negligence; discovery is judged objectively.

Melgard v. Hanna · filed 1980-03-10(1)

The applicable statute of limitations is therefore ORS 12.110(1), which allows a two year period in which to file an action. ... The statute does not commence to run until the occurrence of the harm and until such time as it appears reasonably probable that the damage complained of was caused by the negligence of defendants and not by some other cause. ... When discovery of professional negligence may be said to occur is an objective matter, for a claimant is charged with knowledge which exercise of reasonable care would disclose when facts are known from which the inference flows.

Section 12.110 provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims governed by Oregon’s personal-injury limitations law.

Gowin v. Multnomah County · filed 1998-08-31

Accordingly, based on ORS 12.110, Gowin’s Section 1983 claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year statute of limitations, so claims based on events before two years before filing are barred.

Nielson v. Legacy Health Systems · filed 2001-06-12(1)

The statute of limitations for plaintiffs claims is two years. ORS 12.110(1). His last complaint was filed on March 2, 2001. Therefore, he can only bring this action for claims arising after March 2, 1999. Plaintiff cannot recover for events that took place before March 2, 1999. The portions of plaintiffs claims relying on those events are dismissed for this additional reason.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations under Oregon’s general tort law.

Hess v. Multnomah County · filed 2001-12-07(1)

Since 42 USC § 1983 does not provide a statute of limitations, the limitations period is borrowed from state law and these claims are characterized as personal injury actions for statute of limitations purposes. ... Oregon’s general tort statute provides a two-year statute of limitations. ORS 12.110(1).

ORS 12.110 provides a two-year statute of limitations applicable to the claim, and commencement of the class action tolled that period for later-identified plaintiffs.

Miller v. Yamhill County · filed 2009-05-15

The two-year statute of limitations as set forth in ORS 12.110 applies. ... Thus, the filing of the class action on December 1, 2006 tolled the statute of limitations, not just to plaintiff Jacob Miller, but also to the other later identified plaintiffs, including Daniel Miller. Therefore, the March 28, 2005 search was within the applicable two year statute of limitations.

Section 12.110(1) applies a two-year limitations period to misrepresentation claims that are not contractual or otherwise specially enumerated, subject to the applicable discovery rule.

Riverview Condominium Ass'n v. Cypress Ventures, Inc. · filed 2014-10-29(1)

Accordingly, consistently with our decision in Morrison, we hold that the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1) governs the Association’s misrepresentation claims.

Section 12.110(1) requires covered tort actions to be filed within two years, with accrual under the discovery rule when the injury is actually or reasonably discoverable.

Padrick v. Lyons · filed 2016-04-13(1)

It is also undisputed that the two-year limitation period set forth in ORS 12.110(1) applies to plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim, as does the rule of discovery described in that statute.10 Under the discovery rule, the statutory period begins to run from the earlier of (1) the date the plaintiff actually discovers the injury or (2) the date when the plaintiff, exercising reasonable care, should have discovered the injury, including learning facts that an inquiry would have disclosed.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on personal-injury-based civil-rights and negligence claims, running under Oregon's discovery rule when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Camarata v. Portland Community College · filed 2019-09-26(1)

In Oregon, the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, ORS 12.110(1)[,] applies to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... These claims are also governed by the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1). ... ORS 12.110(1) also contains an implicit “discovery rule.” See, e.g. Berry v. Branner, 245 Or. 307, 309, 421 P.2d 996 (1966), superseded by statute as stated in Lesch v. DeWitt, 118 Or. App. 397 (1993). ... “That rule provides that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known facts that would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three following elements exists: harm, causation, and tortious conduct.”

Section 12.110(1) requires an action for an injury to a person or another's rights, not arising on contract and not otherwise specially enumerated, to be commenced within two years, with fraud or deceit claims accruing upon discovery.

Waterfront Pearl Condo. Owners v. Waterfront Pearl · filed 2021-07-08(1)

ORS 12.110(1)—the applicable statute of limitations here—provides: ... An “injury” is discovered when a plaintiff knows or should have known of the existence of three elements: (1) harm; (2) causation; and (3) tortious conduct.

Section 12.110(4) generally requires medical-negligence claims to be commenced within two years, with the limitations period running when the plaintiff discovers the alleged tortious conduct rather than merely the full extent of the damages.

Cambrium v. CSL Plasma · filed 2023-09-27(4)

Second, Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim is likely barred by the statute of limitations. Actions for claims for medical negligence must generally be commenced within two years. ORS 12.110(4). Here, the incident took place on August 21, 2021, and Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 26, 2023. Plaintiff acknowledges this discrepancy, and he explains that he “wasn’t positively diagnosed as diabetic until 9/27/21 and was in denial, a mental fog with little energy because of his elevated blood sugar levels.” Complt Ex 1 Att. C. However, based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff knew immediately that something was wrong with the plasma procedure, and he claims that the more experienced phlebotomist told him directly that the other person had “set the machine to draw the amount of plasma for a heavier person,” and that was the reason Plaintiff experienced certain symptoms in reaction. Complt. Ex 2. Thus, while Plaintiff may have been unaware of the extent of his damages, Plaintiff “discovered” the alleged tortious conduct immediately at the time of the incident. See Frohs v. Greene, 253 Or. 1, 4, 452 P.2d 564, 565 (1969) (discovery rule affords opportunity for plaintiff to discover that claim exists).

Section 12.110 gives fraud claims a two-year statute of limitations.

Ouma v. Asher · filed 2021-08-25

The district court properly dismissed Ouma’s action as time-barred because Ouma failed to file this action within two years of the alleged fraud, and Ouma failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that equitable tolling applies. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110 (two-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); Torre v. Brickey, 278 F.3d 917, 919 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts apply the forum state’s substantive law when subject matter is based on diversity of citizenship, except to the extent inconsistent with federal law); see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (requirements of equitable tolling).

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on personal-injury lawsuits and unjust-enrichment claims grounded in tort.

Emanuel Displaced Persons Association 2 v. City of Portland · filed 2023-12-01(1)

In Oregon, the statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits is two years. Or. Rev. Stat. (ORS) § 12.110(1). Similarly, under Oregon law, a two-year statute of limitations applies to unjust enrichment claims grounded in tort. ORS § 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims, and that limitations period applies to § 1983 claims when federal law supplies no limitations period.

Conn v. Multnomah Co. Sheriff · filed 2025-03-20(1)

The residual statute is ORS § 12.110(1),1 which establishes a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions, including § 1983 claims.

Chalkley v. State of Oregon · filed 2025-06-12(1)

Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, ORS 12.110(1) applies to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on wrongful termination, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Kozierachi v. St. Charles Health System · filed 2025-09-17(1)

Plaintiff’s remaining claims for common law wrongful discharge, whistleblower retaliation, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress carry limitations periods of one to two years. ORS 12.110(1) (providing a two-year limitations period for wrongful termination, NIED, and IIED); Stupek v. Wyle Laby’s. Corp., 327 Or. 433, 435 (1998) (citing ORS 12.110(1); ORS 659A.875(1)(A) (providing a one-year limitations period for whistleblower retaliation); Kraemer v. Harding, 159 Or. App. 90, 103 (1999) (applying a one-year limitations period for defamation).

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for general tort and personal-injury claims, which applies as the forum state's limitations period to § 1983 claims.

Davidson · filed 2025-11-26(1)

“Oregon’s general tort statute provides a 2-year statute of limitations.” Plumeau v. School District No. 40, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1)). ... Because Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim accrued in 2017 and she did not file this action until 2025, the two-year statute of limitations bars this claim.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year statute of limitations for general tort claims and supplies the limitations period for § 1983 and non-employment ADA claims when Oregon law governs.

Barrett · filed 2025-12-02(1)

Statutes of limitation “limit the time a party has to initiate an action once a claim has accrued.” ... Similarly, Oregon’s general tort statute of limitations is two years. ORS 12.110(1). And Plaintiff’s federal claims under § 1983 and the ADA are subject to the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1). Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts look to the law of the state in which the cause of action arose and apply the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action.”); Savona v. S. Oregon Univ., No. 1:17-CV-01604-AA, 2018 WL 1547843, at *4 (D. Or. Mar. 29, 2018) (applying the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1) to the plaintiff’s non-employment ADA claims).

Section 12.110 supplies the two-year catchall limitations period for tort claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional interference, and IIED when no more specific limitations statute applies; claims accrue when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the conduct.

Hunt v. Goffman · filed 2025-09-04

All that occurred later was plaintiff received additional evidence supporting the conclusion that defendants were, indeed, obfuscating regarding the irrigation and liens. Similarly, plaintiff’s intentional interference and IIED claims were also based on events that occurred during the contract period. The trial court did not err in concluding that plaintiff’s claims were filed too late.

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year statute of limitations for the claim at issue.

Deyoung · filed 2026-04-08(1)

Here, the applicable statute of limitations is two years. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1)).

Section 12.110(1) gives breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims a two-year limitations period that runs from when the claimant knew or should have known of the injury.

Mitchell v. Burt & Vetterlein · filed 1996-03-29(1)

Under Oregon law, Stein had to file his claim for breach of fiduciary duty within two years of the date on which he knew or should have known that he was damaged by B & G's breach of duty. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1); Condon v. Bank of California, 759 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Or.Ct.App.1988).

Section 12.110(1) bars an action brought more than two years after the injury occurred, subject to applicable tolling.

Fort v. Hailey · filed 1996-06-14(1)

Thus, to the extent Fort's action has accrued, it is barred by Oregon Revised Statute § 12.110(1) because it was brought more than two years after the injury occurred.

Section 12.110 sets a two-year statute of limitations for fraud claims.

Adidas-America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. · filed 2008-02-22

Here, adidas’ claims are governed by Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for fraud claims, Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110.

Section 12.110(1) sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including § 1983 claims arising in Oregon.

Rodriguez v. Williams · filed 2011-08-17(1)

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Rodriguez’s claims regarding the conditions of his confinement because these claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and Rodriguez failed to establish circumstances warranting equitable tolling.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions that applies to § 1983 claims.

Britton v. Klamath County · filed 2020-12-16(1)

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Britton’s Fourth Amendment claim because the claim is time-barred. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (providing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1009 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is the state law statute of limitations for personal injury cases).

Section 12.110(1) sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to § 1983 claims brought in Oregon.

Kazalonis v. Harney County, Oregon · filed 2022-07-18(1)

The district court properly dismissed Kazalonis’s claims regarding 2002 civil forfeiture proceedings as barred by the statute of limitations. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In determining the proper statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we look to the statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the forum state.”); Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); see also Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.160(3)-(4) (allowing five years of tolling for persons with a “disabling mental condition”); Simonsen v. Ford Motor Co., 102 P.3d 710, 719 (Or. Ct. App. 2004) (“[I]n general, ORS 12.110(1), tolled by ORS 12.160, allows a plaintiff suffering such a disability to commence an appropriate action a maximum of seven years after the date of the injury.”).

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including the § 1983 retaliation claim at issue.

Holloway v. Clackamas River Water · filed 2022-08-10(1)

The district court properly found the First Amendment retaliation claim is barred by the statute of limitations because the claim accrued more than two years before Holloway amended the complaint to state the claim and add allegations related to it. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 871-72 (9th Cir. 2018) (reasoning that while state statutes of limitations apply to § 1983 actions, federal law governs when a claim accrues, which is “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which applies to analogous ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

Smith v. Hein · filed 2023-08-07(1)

Dismissal of the claims against defendants Hein and Transition Projects, Inc. was proper because these claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A) (two-year statute of limitations for claims under the Fair Housing Act); Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1137 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (for Americans with Disabilities Act claims, courts apply the statute of limitations for the most analogous state law); Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 823 n.11 (9th Cir. 2001) (same for Rehabilitation Act claims).

Section 12.110 imposes a two-year limitations period on torts to a person.

Teren v. Howard · filed 1963-09-04

We think it clear that ORS 12.110 with its 2 year period applies to *955torts to a person and that ORS 12.080(4) with a 6 year period applies in this case.

Section 12.110(1)'s two-year limitation for personal-injury actions begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the tort, including medical malpractice.

Berry v. Branner · filed 1966-12-28(1)

The case of Vaughn v. Langmack is overruled.

For a legal-malpractice claim governed by § 12.110, the limitations period begins when the plaintiff has suffered actual damage and knows or should know that the attorney’s negligence caused it, not merely when the plaintiff is sued over advice given by the attorney.

Fliegel v. Davis · filed 1985-05-15

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action. ORS 12.110. The dispositive question is when Parker’s claim for relief accrued. ... In U.S. Nat’l Bank v. Davies, 274 Or 663, 548 P2d 966 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a claim for legal malpractice accrues when the plaintiff has both been damaged in fact and knows or should know that the defendant’s negligence is the cause of the damage. ... Our original decision in the previous case gave Parker no reason to believe that its attorneys were guilty of malpractice. It was not until the Supreme Court reversed our decision and, thus, concluded the entire case that Parker could have known that its attorneys’ advice was negligent. ... This action was timely.

Section 12.110's limitation period bars a personal-injury action against a different corporate defendant added after the period expired when the amendment cannot relate back to the original filing.

Maslov v. Manning, Chapel of the Roses, Inc. · filed 1964-12-31

The precise question presented, the propriety of an amendment substituting, after the running of the limitation period, a corporate defendant for the individual defendant originally sued, is one of first impression in this state. ... The underlying rationale of the oases, albeit seldom expressed, is that where different assets may be subjected to execution, the amendment should not be allowed, or being allowed, it should not relate baek so as to efface a valid but perhaps harsh defense of the entity sought to be brought in as party defendant after the running of the limitation period. ... Plaintiff’s action against respondent, Chapel of the Roses, Inc., was not commenced within the period of the statute. The granting of the directed verdict on the basis of the statute of limitations was proper and the judgment for defendant based upon that order is affirmed.

Section 12.110 starts the two-year limitations period for a fraud action when the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered.

Carey v. Hays · filed 1966-01-19

If it is at law, a fraud action for damages, the two-year statute of limitations commenced to run when the plaintiffs discovered, or should have discovered, the fraud. ORS 12.110; Linebaugh v. Portland Mortgage Co., 116 Or 1, 8, 239 P 196 (1925). There was conflicting evidence upon the issue of when the fraud was discovered. It would be necessary for the trier of fact to make a determination of this issue.

For fraud or deceit claims, § 12.110(1)'s two-year period begins when the fraud is discovered, including when reasonable diligence would have given the plaintiff constructive knowledge.

Forest Grove Brick Works, Inc. v. Strickland · filed 1977-01-27(1)

The period of limitation in fraud cases commences "from the discovery of the fraud or deceit.” ... The word "discovery” in the statute has been interpreted, however, in an objective as opposed to a subjective manner. Not only knowledge but imputed or constructive knowledge will commence the period of limitations.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period that begins when a reasonably prudent person associates symptoms with a serious or permanent condition and recognizes the defendant's role in causing it.

Colvin v. FMC Corp. · filed 1979-12-17(1)

The allegation in paragraph X is sufficient to survive demurrer under the Schiele test.

Section 12.110(1) requires a fraud action to be brought within two years after discovery of the fraud, and when the plaintiff should have discovered the fraud is ordinarily a question for the jury unless only one reasonable conclusion is possible.

Durham v. Warnberg · filed 1983-03-23(1)

Defendants argue that plaintiffs did not prove that their claim was brought within two years of the discovery of the fraud. ORS 12.110(1). Although there was evidence that plaintiffs could have known as early as 1973 that defendants never intended to reconvey the property without further consideration, the evidence does not show as a matter of law that plaintiffs discovered the fraud more than two years before commencing the action. When plaintiffs should have known of the fraud is a question of fact for the jury, except where only one conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

For an action based on fraud or deceit, the two-year limitations period begins only upon discovery of the fraud, judged by an objective inquiry into whether the plaintiff had enough knowledge to prompt investigation and whether reasonably diligent inquiry would reveal it.

McCraw v. Stapp · filed 1986-10-29(1)

The test of when fraud is “discovered” is an objective one.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the property had diminished in value because of the defendant’s alleged culpability.

McDonald v. United States National Bank · filed 1992-05-13(1)

At trial, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the action was barred by ORS 12.110(1), the two year Statute of Limitations. ... The Statute of Limitations was triggered when plaintiffs knew, or should have known, that the property had diminished in value as a result of defendant’s alleged culpability.

Section 12.110(1) begins running when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of a substantial possibility of harm, causation, and tortious conduct, including the defendant’s negligence causing the harm.

Timber By-Products, Inc. v. Sloan · filed 1997-06-11(1)

The statute of limitations for accounting malpractice is two years. ORS 12.110(1); ... An injury under ORS 12.110(1) means a legally cognizable harm consisting of three elements: (1) harm; (2) causation; and (3) tortious conduct. ... The statute begins to run “when the plaintiff knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three elements (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exists.” ... A plaintiffs discovery of the injury includes discerning the defendant’s negligence in causing the harm.

Section 12.110(1) starts the two-year limitations period for a fraud action when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the fraud.

Bell v. Benjamin · filed 2009-12-16(1)

ORS 12.110 provides that, in an action for fraud or deceit, the two-year limitation period “shall be deemed to commence only from the discovery of the fraud or deceit.” For purposes of that statute, a plaintiff “discovers” the fraud “when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged fraud.”

Section 12.110(1)'s two-year limitations period begins under Oregon's discovery rule when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know facts indicating a substantial possibility of harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Ckh Family Limited Partnership v. Holt Homes, Inc. · filed 2019-05-22(1)

In Oregon, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three elements (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exists.” Gaston v. Parsons, 864 P.2d 1319, 1324 (Or. 1994). The application of this “discovery accrual rule is a factual issue for the jury unless the only conclusion a reasonable jury could reach is that the plaintiff knew or should have known the critical facts at a specified time and did not file suit within the requisite time thereafter.” T.R. v. Boy Scouts of America, 181 P.3d 758, 765 (Or. 2008).

Section 12.110’s two-year limitations period begins when the plaintiff knows or should know of harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Cattell v. Deeks · filed 2020-06-08

Finally, PwC argues that the fiduciary-duty claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitation in ORS 12.110. ... The two-year limitation period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should know of harm, causation, and tortious conduct. PwC correctly argues that the complaint demonstrates that Cattell was actually aware of all three elements no later than December 22, 2017. ... The limitation period began to run no later than December 22, 2017. Under state law, the complaint was untimely when filed in January 2020.

Section 12.110(1) generally requires fraud, negligent-misrepresentation, and tortious-interference claims to be commenced within two years.

Puri v. Khalsa · filed 2019-12-23(1)

Oregon law provides that claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference must generally be commenced within two years. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1); see also Spirit Partners, LP v. Stoel Rives LLP, 157 P.3d 1194, 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 2007) (fraud and negligent misrepresentation); Butcher v. McClain, 260 P.3d 611, 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (tortious interference).

Section 12.110(1) gives fraud claims a two-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should discover, facts indicating harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Ditech Holding Corporation · filed 2021-10-03(1)

“The discovery rule in ORS 12.110(1) creates the following disjunctive test for fraud-claim accrual: a fraud claim accrues when the plaintiff has discovered facts or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered facts that would alert a reasonable person to the existence of the three elements of an actionable injury, which are (1) harm, (2) causation, and (3) tortious conduct—viz., the alleged fraud.” ... The Estate Representatives contend, and the Court agrees, that fraud claims relating to the origination of the Reverse Mortgage accrued on the later of the date that the Claimant executed the Note and the date that the Deed of Trust was recorded.

Section 12.110(1) gives fraud claims a two-year limitations period running from discovery of the fraud or deceit, and a plaintiff must plead facts showing timeliness when the claim appears untimely.

Provino v. First American Property Exchange · filed 2025-07-30(1)

Under Oregon law, a plaintiff must file a lawsuit asserting fraud within two years from the discovery of the “discovery of the fraud or deceit.” ORS § 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on personal-injury claims based on fraud or deceit, beginning when the fraud is discovered.

Sehat v. Gemological Institute of America, Inc. · filed 2024-11-21(1)

Oregon law sets a two-year limitations period for bringing lawsuits for personal injury claims like Plaintiff’s that are “based upon fraud or deceit.” ORS 12.110(1). The two-year period starts running when the fraud is discovered. Id.

Section 12.110’s two-year limitation applies to a common-law duty to account, but a limitations defense apparent on the complaint’s face is waived unless raised by demurrer.

Commercial Securities, Inc. v. General Insurance Co. of America · filed 1966-09-19

During oral argument on the motion to remand, it was conceded by plaintiff that the cause of action against defendant Lama is governed by the two year statute of limitations, ORS 12.110, since Lama’s duty to account to the plaintiff is a common-law obligation, independent of statute. ... The complaint, on its face, shows that the action against Lama was barred by the statute of limitations. However, counsel did not, as required by the Oregon practice, assert the bar by demurrer. Where the matter appears on the face of the pleadings, the objection must be taken by demurrer, or it is waived.

Section 12.110(3)'s two-year limitations period applies to claims for overtime or premium pay, not to claims for bonuses.

Rake v. City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport, Inc. · filed 1967-08-31(3)

A bonus, such as claimed by the plaintiff, is not “overtime or premium pay” as contemplated by the statute.

Subsection (1)'s two-year limitation does not govern a claim whose gravamen is breach of contract rather than tort.

Hollin v. Libby, McNeill & Libby · filed 1969-04-02(1)

Defendant contends the complaint seeks to state an action in tort, for the wrongful “ouster,” and is controlled by the two-year statute of limitations. ORS 12.110(1). ... We think defendant’s contention with reference to the two-year limitation is untenable. A fair appraisal of the language quoted from the complaint leaves a clear conclusion: that plaintiffs were alleging a contract which defendant breached by particular conduct. The allegation of wrongful ouster in Paragraph VIII of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and did not change the action to one for tort. ... The gravamen of the complaint was breach of contract.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period that barred the plaintiff's negligence claim.

Port of Portland v. Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co. · filed 1983-05-11(1)

We held that plaintiffs first count in negligence was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, ORS 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year limitation period for tort claims, but it does not govern an implied-warranty action arising from a home-sale contract.

Cabal v. Donnelly · filed 1986-02-26(1)

In Beveridge v. King, supra, a majority of this court held that an action on the implied warranty was one for breach of contract and subject to the six-year Statute of Limitations governing contract claims (ORS 12.080(1)), rather than the two-year Statute of Limitations governing tort claims (ORS 12.110(1)). ... We reaffirm our holding in Beveridge v. King, supra, believing that the implied obligation of the vendor is not distinguishable from the express obligations involved in Schmauch v. Johnston, supra.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on tort claims for damage to property itself, including construction-defect claims unless another specifically enumerated limitation applies, with the period tied to discovery of the injury or damage.

Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc. · filed 2016-06-16(1)

ORS 12.135(1) provides that construction defect claims may be subject to different statutes of limitation, depending on the nature of the claim—whether for breach of contract, tort, or something else. A construction defect claim for damage to the property itself is subject to the two-year limitation period of ORS 12.110, unless another limitation period “especially enumerated” in ORS chapter 12 applies. In this case, no other such limitation period applies.

Section 12.110 imposes a two-year statute of limitations on tort and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

Johnson v. Milwaukie City Hall · filed 2024-06-04

However, any tort or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims premised on events that transpired on or around April 2021 are precluded by the statute of limitations. See Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (tort and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are subject to a two year statute of limitations under Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110); see also Stanley v. Tr. of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir. 2006) (for statute of limitations purposes, “[t]he proper focus is upon the time of the [wrongful] acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts became most painful”) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

Section 12.110(3) requires overtime-pay actions to be filed within two years and does not incorporate a discovery rule, although equitable tolling may still apply.

Denley · filed 2026-01-28(3)

ORS § 12.110(3) does not contain a discovery rule under Oregon law, but Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages may be subject to equitable tolling.

Section 12.110(1)'s two-year limitations period for medical malpractice runs from when the plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the malpractice, not automatically from the date of the negligent act.

Frohs v. Greene · filed 1969-04-02(1)

We do not believe that the danger of spurious claims is so great as to necessitate the infliction of injustice on persons having legitimate claims which were undiseoverable by the exercise of ordinary care prior to the lapse of two years from the time of the act inflicting the injury. Nor do we believe the legislature intended such a result.

Section 12.110(4)'s discovery period begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury, its attribution to the alleged tortfeasor, and the tortfeasor's negligence.

Hoffman v. Rockey · filed 1982-01-25(4)

A plaintiff should discover that he has a cause of action when he realizes (1) that he has been injured, (2) that the injury can be attributed to an act of the alleged tortfeasor, and (3) that the act of the alleged tortfeasor was somehow negligent.

For claims arising from medical treatment, the two-year limitations period begins when the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, including when the plaintiff knows of an injury caused by a possibly negligent act even if the injury's full extent is not yet known.

Gannon v. Rogue Valley Medical Center · filed 1988-08-03(4)

It is conceded in this case that plaintiffs realized in 1982 that defendant’s administration of the myelogram was possibly negligent. It is also undisputed that plaintiffs were aware in 1982 that defendant’s act may have caused injury, that is, meningitis. We hold that the statute began to run in 1982, and that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by ORS 10.110(4).

Section 12.110(4) starts the two-year medical-malpractice limitations period when the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered; whether negligence should reasonably have been discovered can be a jury question when the physician’s assurances delayed discovery.

Gaston v. Parsons · filed 1993-01-06(4)

ORS 12.110(4) provides, in part, that an action for medical malpractice must be commenced “within two years from the date when the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered.” ... Regardless of how the test is phrased, the question is: When did plaintiff have reason to know that defendants’ negligence may have been the cause of the loss of feeling in his arm? ... Here, there is a question of fact as to when plaintiff should reasonably have discovered that the cause of his injury was defendants’ negligence.

Section 12.110(4) starts the two-year limitations period for a medical-negligence action when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know facts showing a substantial possibility of harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Gaston v. Parsons · filed 1994-01-06(4)

In light of the text and the context of ORS 12.110(4) and the legislative history of that provision, we hold that the legislature intended the word “injury,” as used in ORS 12.110(4), to mean legally cognizable harm. In the tort context of ORS 12.110(4), a harm is legally cognizable if it is the result of tortious conduct. Therefore, “injury,” as used in ORS 12.110(4), consists of three elements: (1) harm; (2) causation; and (3) tortious conduct.

For medical, surgical, and dental-treatment injuries, the two-year limitations period begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know facts showing a substantial possibility of harm, causation, and tortious conduct; separately caused injuries are analyzed separately.

McClure v. Leroy · filed 1995-02-22(4)

“Injury,” for purposes of that statute, consists of three elements: (1) harm; (2) causation; and (3) tortious conduct.

For medical, surgical, or dental injury claims, the two-year period starts when the claimant discovers, or reasonably should discover, harm, causation, and tortious conduct.

Minisce v. Thompson · filed 1997-09-10(4)

“[i]njur[y]” within the meaning of ORS 12.110(4) “consists of three elements: (1) harm; (2) causation; and (3) tortious conduct.”