1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 208 P.3d
  5. 208 P.3d 950 (2009)
 

RAM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. v. KORESKO

(CC CV04100199; CA A130143, SC S055865).

208 P.3d 950 (2009)

346 Or. 215

RAM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation; Charles Stalnaker and Susan Stalnaker, Petitioners on Review, v. John J. KORESKO; Ram Technical Services Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association; Regional Employers' Assurance Leagues Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association; and Pennmont Benefit Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Respondents on Review, and Great Southern Life Insurance Company, a Texas corporation; The Corben Education Services, Inc., an Oregon corporation; and Thomas W. Crosswhite, Respondents on Review.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Decided May 29, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Susan D. Marmaduke, Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief on behalf of petitioners on review. With her on the brief were William F. Gary, Sharon A. Rudnick, and Jona J. Maukonen.

Lisa E. Lear, Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, Portland, and Scott Kaplan, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents on review John J. Koresko, Ram Technical Services Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, Regional Employers' Assurance Leagues Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, Pennmont Benefit Services, Inc., and Great Southern Life Insurance Company. With them on the brief were Robert B. Miller, Andrew C. Hanan, Conrad, O'Brien, Gellman & Rohn, Virginia L. Miller, and Anderson Kill & Olick PC.

Eric K. Helmy, The Helmy Law Firm PC, Portland, filed the brief for respondent on review Thomas W. Crosswhite.

No appearance on behalf of respondent on review The Corben Education Services, Inc.

KISTLER, J.

Plaintiffs filed an action in federal district court, alleging claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC § 1132 et seq. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' federal action, and plaintiffs filed an action in state court, raising parallel state law claims. The question that this case presents is whether either claim preclusion or the statute of limitations bars...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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

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

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

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

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

Citing Cases