See also annotations under ORS 16.090 in permanent edition.




      This rule and ORCP 28, read together, allow plaintiff to assert alternative inconsistent claims against multiple defendants. Dotson v. Smith, 307 Or 132, 764 P2d 540 (1988)


      Party need only choose between or among inconsistent remedies, not inconsistent claims or theories of recovery. Arter v. Spathas, 98 Or App 362, 779 P2d 1066 (1989)


      Where plaintiff conceded at trial that he incorrectly characterized his action, court abused its discretion by allowing plaintiff to proceed on theory not pleaded in complaint. Navas v. City of Springfield, 122 Or App 196, 857 P2d 867 (1993)


      Whether allegations properly identify defendant as party to action is determined by reference to whole pleading, not just caption. Johnson v. Manders, 127 Or App 147, 872 P2d 420 (1994), Sup Ct review denied