††††† ORCP 19
††††† See annotations under ORS 16.290 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
††††† Defendantís assertion, in motion to dismiss original complaint, that action was time barred, does not avoid waiver of limitations defense when defendant does not affirmatively allege defense in answer to amended complaint. Simpson v. Simpson, 83 Or App 86, 730 P2d 592 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
††††† Defense of usury had to be affirmatively pleaded by defendant who sought to rely on it at trial. Arnold Machinery Co. v. CSL Building Corp., 84 Or App 132, 733 P2d 115 (1987)
††††† Where it appears from face of complaint that action is time-barred and complaint alleges facts in avoidance of bar, defendantís general denial is sufficient to plead limitations defense and it is not necessary to plead statute of limitations as affirmative defense. Taylor v. Barbecue Time, Inc., 100 Or App 497, 786 P2d 1303 (1990)
††††† Defenses of mitigation and avoidable consequences need not be pleaded affirmatively and, therefore, trial court erred in excluding evidence for those defenses on that basis. Marcoulier v. Umsted, 105 Or App 260, 805 P2d 140 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
††††† For purposes of issue preclusion, guilty plea to criminal charge has same effect as conviction following full adjudication. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Sallak, 140 Or App 89, 914 P2d 697 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
††††† See annotations under ORS 16.030, 16.240 and 16.620 in permanent edition.