rejecting an equal protection and due process challenges to the OTCA notice requirement
How later courts described this case
- rejecting an equal protection and due process challenges to the OTCA notice requirement
- plaintiff substan- tially complied with Oregon Tort Claims Act notice requirement when proper person received actual notice and purpose of notice statute was satisfied
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PETERSON, J.,
specially concurring.
In concurring with the result in this case, it is again necessary to point out that the majority’s analysis of ORS 30.275 is, today, no less an unwarranted judicial *652 excursion into the legislature’s statute-making prerogative than it was when we decided Brown v. Portland School District #1, 291 Or 77 , 628 P2d 1183 (1981).
The last six paragraphs of the majority opinion neither suggest nor compel the conclusion that the requirements of the statute were met. Rather, they show that the defendant either waived compliance with ORS 30.275 or it should be estopped to assert that the requirements of the statute were not met. See the dissenting and concurring opinions in Brown, 291 Or at 85-98 .