Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on tort claims.

Logan v. Tiegs · filed 2007-12-13(1)

With respect to Plaintiffs’ tort claims, we note first that the applicable statute of limitations for tort claims is two years. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1). Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on April 4, 2003. Accordingly, we examine Plaintiffs’ claim of a “special relationship” for the period beginning April 4, 2001.

Section 12.110(1) requires personal-injury claims, including § 1983 claims characterized as personal-injury actions, to be filed within two years after accrual.

Bergin v. McCall · filed 2009-01-14(1)

The district court properly dismissed Bergin’s claims against his former medical partner because Bergin did not file those claims 'within two years after they accrued, as required by Oregon’s personal injury statute. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1); Davis v. Harvey, 789 F.2d 1332, 1333 (9th Cir.1986) (“Section 1983 claims are to be characterized as personal injury actions for statute of limitations purposes.”).

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period, subject to the discovery rule, for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious-interference claims.

Communication Management Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. · filed 2014-12-15(1)

“A fraud action must be commenced within two years of the date on which the cause of action accrues.” Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 251 Or.App. 316, 321, 284 P.3d 524 (2012). See also Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1). “[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.” Murphy, 251 Or.App. at 321, 284 P.3d 524. ... Accordingly, on this record the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ Claim Six is barred by the two-year statute of limitations pursuant to § 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) gives a tenant two years to bring a personal injury negligence claim against a landlord when the claim rests on a duty owed to lawful users other than tenants.

Jones v. Bierek · filed 1988-06-07(1)

The complaint was, however, filed within the two-year limit ordinarily applicable to tort actions, ORS 12.110. ... This does not suffice to show that the legislature meant to deprive tenants of the same time for pursuing a common-law remedy that would be available to a non-tenant similarly injured.

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

Allen v. Gresham Police Department · filed 1993-11-08(1)

Section 1983 actions are governed by the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). Thus, Oregon's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to Allen's action. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam).

Section 12.110(1) sets a two-year limitations period for Oregon personal-injury actions, which federal courts use as the limitations period for § 1983 claims.

Clavette v. Sweeney · filed 2001-01-30(1)

Instead, federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. ... In Oregon, the limitations period for personal injury actions is two years. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1).

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

Bollinger v. Oregon State Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2003-12-22(1)

Under Oregon law, the statute of limitations for a personal injury action is two years. Or. Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1) (2001); see also Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.2002). ... Because Bollinger filed his § 1983 action on October 30, 2001, the two-year statute of limitations does not bar his action.

Section 12.110(1) provides a two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions, which applies to bar the civil-rights claim after the period expires.

Wimberly v. Kitzhaber · filed 2005-06-24(1)

The district court properly dismissed this civil rights action under Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, see Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1)), because it is clear from the face of the complaint that the statute had expired before Wimberly filed the action, and Wimberly cannot prove the statute was tolled, see Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir.1980).

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

Douglas v. Noelle · filed 2009-06-05(1)

Section 1983 claims are characterized as personal injury suits for statute of limitations purposes. ... Oregon’s statute of limitations for such suits is two years. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1). ... The events that form the basis of Douglas’s sixth claim occurred on December 1, 2002. Under the Houston mailbox rule, Douglas’s § 1983 complaint was filed on November 30, 2004, just within the two-year statute of limitations. We therefore conclude that Douglas has timely filed his sixth claim under § 1983.

Section 12.110(1) requires a personal injury action to be filed within two years of the injury unless the limitation period is tolled.

Santos v. Flxible Co. · filed 1979-07-02(1)

The date of the injury (by plaintiff’s own admission in this court and in the trial court) was June 7, 1976 (not June 11, 1976, as alleged in the complaint), and more than two years had elapsed prior to the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint.1 Therefore, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, based on the statute of limitations, ORS 12.110(1). ... The facts are uncontroverted that the defendant could have been served under ORS 57.700(2)(b) at all times following the date of the plaintiff’s injury. We *93believe that the policy considerations stated in Whittington v. Davis, supra, compel the same result,5 and we find that the trial court properly allowed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 12.110's two-year limitations period begins when the plaintiff knows or, through due diligence, should have known the critical facts of the injury, and whether that point was reached is generally a fact question.

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation Inc. · filed 1999-08-19

These claims1 have their roots in the events of over three decades ago, and the parties agree that the statute of limitations applicable to both the federal and the state claims is two years. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) (holding that the appropriate state statute of limitations to borrow for section 1983 actions is that for recovery of damages for personal injuries); Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110 (1997). The question remains: Two years from when? ... Because it is inequitable to bar someone who has no idea he has been harmed from seeking redress, the statute of limitations has generally been tolled by the “discovery rule.” Under this rule, the statute only begins to run once a plaintiff has knowledge of the “critical facts” of his injury, which are “that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury.” ... There is a twist to the discovery rule: The plaintiff must be diligent in discovering the critical facts. As a result, a plaintiff who did not actually know that his rights were violated will be barred from bringing his claim after the running of the statute of limitations, if he should have known in the exercise of due diligence.

Section 12.110(1) incorporates Oregon's discovery rule, so the limitations period does not begin until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury, including its tortious nature.

Turner v. State · filed 2008-09-03(1)

Under Oregon law, the statute of limitations does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered her injury. ... Contrary to Hall-berg’s assertions, the Oregon courts do apply a “discovery rule” under § 12.110(1).

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

Jones v. City of McMinnville · filed 2007-05-09(1)

Because the statute of limitations for federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is determined by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, Appellants’ federal equal protection claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.2002) (“Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing Or. Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1)).

Section 12.110(4) requires medical-malpractice claims to be filed within five years, but allows a two-year period from discovery when fraud, deceit, or a misleading representation caused the delay; a doctor's failure to disclose diagnostic results may qualify as such a representation.

Sonsteng v. Dominican Sisters of Ontario, Inc. · filed 2009-05-28(4)

The Oregon statute provides that a plaintiff must bring an action “within five years from the date of the treatment, omission or operation upon which the action is based.” Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(4). However, if a plaintiff fails to bring an action within five years “because of fraud, deceit, or misleading representation,” plaintiff must then bring the action within two years from the date he or she discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered, the fraud, deceit or misleading representation. ... Defendant need not make an affirmative statement in order to make a misleading representation within the meaning of the tolling provision of section 12.110(4). ... As this court previously determined in its ruling on the motion to dismiss, defendant’s alleged failure to disclose the results of Mrs. Sonsteng’s chest x-ray constituted a misrepresentation within the meaning of section 12.110(4). ... Plaintiffs allegations and evidence of misleading representation and Mrs. Sonsteng’s reliance on the representation are adequate for his claims of negligence to withstand the motion for summary judgment on statute of limitation grounds. Plaintiff has presented enough evidence to show a material factual dispute on the applicability of the tolling provision of section 12.110(4), independent of the merits of plaintiffs negligence claims.

Section 12.110(4) does not extend the filing period when an innocent contemporaneous representation concerns only the performance or success of the treatment underlying the malpractice claim.

Duncan v. Augter · filed 1979-06-19(4)

Such an innocent contemporaneous representation must misrepresent something other than the careful performance or the success of the very treatment or operation whose failure is the basis of plaintiff’s subsequent complaint.

Section 12.110(1) imposes a two-year limitations period on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, barring incidents occurring before the limitations cutoff.

Campbell v. KNIFE RIVER CORP.-NORTHWEST · filed 2011-03-08(1)

The IIED claim has a two-year statute of limitations, making any incidents before February 5, 2008, not actionable. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1).

Section 12.110(1) sets a two-year limitations period for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Hugo · filed 2025-10-30(1)

For the reasons previously explained, Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s IIED claim. See Stupek v. Wyle Labs. Corp., 963 P.2d 678, 679 (Or. 1998) (noting that IIED claims “have a two-year statute of limitations” (citing OR. REV. STAT. § 12.110(1))).

Section 12.110 sets a two-year limitations period; an amended complaint correcting defects in the original complaint relates back when it asserts the same claim.

Railton v. Redmar · filed 1956-12-05

The period of limitation within which the pending action must have been commenced was two years. ORS 12.110. ... The amended complaint took effect by relation as of the date of the commencement of the action, that is, as of the date of the service of summons after the filing of the original complaint.

ORS 12.110(1)’s two-year limitation does not govern damage caused when a negligently started fire spreads onto another’s land; the action is governed by the six-year limitation for trespass.

Martin v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 1970-09-30(1)

The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it disclosed on its face that the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, ORS 12.110 (1). ... We hold that the invasion in the present case resulting from defendants’ negligent conduct constituted a trespass. ... Therefore, the action is governed by ORS 12.080 (3).

Section 12.110(1) supplies the two-year limitations period for Rule 10b-5 actions brought in Oregon.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,408 Charles E. Williams v. James N. Sinclair, Dan R. Carlson and Frank Yazzolino v. James N. Sinclair · filed 1976-03-29(1)

The trial court correctly applied the Oregon general fraud statute as the statute of limitations applicable to Rule 10b-5 actions.

Section 12.110(4)’s two-year limit does not govern a wrongful death action based on medical malpractice; the wrongful death limitation period applies.

Shaughnessy v. Spray · filed 1981-12-07(4)

We held in Baxter v. Zeller, 42 Or App 873, 601 P2d 902, rev den 288 Or 253 (1979), that the three-year *50limitation period of ORS 30.020(1), rather than the two-year period of ORS 12.110(4), was applicable to a wrongful death action in which the injury causing the death was the result of medical malpractice. ... Baxter holds that the wrongful death statute’s limitation period applies to all wrongful death actions and the tort limitation period which would have been germane if death had not resulted does not apply.

Section 12.110(1) supplies a two-year limitations period for non-employment claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act in Oregon.

Bortnick · filed 2026-03-20(1)

The District of Oregon has generally held that for non-employment claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA, the most analogous Oregon statute is Oregon Revised Statute § 12.110, which provides a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 12.110(1) supplies the two-year limitations period for non-employment ADA and Section 504 claims in Oregon.

Duncan v. Eugene School District 4J · filed 2020-01-06(1)

The District of Oregon has generally held that for non-employment claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA, the most analogous Oregon statute is Oregon Revised Statute § 12.110, which provides a two-year statute of limitations. ... Plaintiff filed the ADA and Section 504 claims on January 15, 2019, thus discrimination claims arising out of events occurring prior to January 15, 2017 are time barred.