"[I]t is * * * within the range of discretion to relieve a claimant from a default caused by the mistake or neglect of an employee who is not charged with responsibility for recognizing and correctly handling the message that constitutes the legally crucial notice from which the time to respond is measured." (Emphasis added.)
How later courts described this case
- "[I]t is * * * within the range of discretion to relieve a claimant from a default caused by the mistake or neglect of an employee who is not charged with responsibility for recognizing and correctly handling the message that constitutes the legally crucial notice from which the time to respond is measured." (Emphasis added.)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*461 TONGUE, J.,
Specially concurring.
I concur in the decision by the majority in this case, but would also hold that our previous decision in Sekermestrovich v. SAIF, 280 Or 723 , 573 P2d 275 (1977), was wrongly decided and should be overruled for reasons stated by the dissent in that case.
LENT, J., and TANZER, J., join in this concurring opinion.