2015 ORS 19.255¹
Time for service and filing of notice of appeal

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a notice of appeal must be served and filed within 30 days after the judgment appealed from is entered in the register.

(2) If a motion for a new trial is filed and served within the time allowed by ORCP 64, or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is filed and served within the time allowed by ORCP 63, a notice of appeal must be served and filed:

(a) Within 30 days after the order disposing of the motion is entered in the register, or within 30 days after the motion is deemed denied under ORCP 63 D or 64 F, whichever is first; or

(b) Within the time allowed by subsection (1) of this section, if the period of time provided for in subsection (1) of this section expires later than the period of time provided for in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(3) Any other party who has appeared in the action, suit or proceeding, desiring to appeal against the appellant or any other party to the action, suit or proceeding, may serve and file notice of appeal within 10 days after the expiration of the time allowed by subsections (1) and (2) of this section. Any party not an appellant or respondent, but who becomes an adverse party to a cross appeal, may cross appeal against any party to the appeal by a written statement in the brief.

(4) Except as otherwise ordered by the appellate court, when more than one notice of appeal is filed, the date on which the last such notice was filed shall be used in determining the time for preparation of the transcript, filing briefs and other steps in connection with the appeal. [Formerly 19.026; 2003 c.281 §1]

(formerly 19.026)

Notes of Decisions

Where clerk neglected to timely enter final judg­ment on register, entry of judg­ment nunc pro tunc was effective to cure premature filing of ap­peal. Turlay v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 259 Or 612, 488 P2d 406 (1971)

A mo­tion to reduce the amount of attorney fees awarded by the court upon default is in the nature of a request for rehearing and must be filed prior to the date the decree becomes final. Lowe v. Institu­tional Investors Trust, 270 Or 814, 529 P2d 920 (1974)

A mo­tion for a new trial in a writ of review pro­ceed­ing had no bearing on the time within which a notice of ap­peal was filed under this sec­tion. Tierney v. Duris, 21 Or App 604, 536 P2d 431 (1975)

In equity case reviewed de novo, where defendant ap­peals from only por­tion of decree, and plaintiff fails to file notice of ap­peal or to cross-ap­peal, plaintiff cannot raise other objec­tions to trial court's decree. Williams v. Mallory, 284 Or 397, 587 P2d 85 (1978)

Filing of request for proposed specific findings of fact does not toll time period for filing ap­peal. Fox & Sons Construc­tion Co. v. Carlton, 42 Or App 689, 601 P2d 835 (1979)

In contract ac­tion, order denying stay pending appraiser's valua­tion precluded appraisal but not judicial ac­tion, and thus was not "judg­ment" within meaning of [former] ORS 19.010 subject to 30-day ap­peal limit under this sec­tion. Budget Rent-A-Car v. Todd Invest­ment Co., 43 Or App 519, 603 P2d 1199 (1979)

For purpose of this sec­tion, extending time for filing notice of ap­peal, defendant's mo­tion and requested instruc­tion on punitive damages was sufficient to support mo­tion for judg­ment n.o.v. Crooks v. Payless Drug Stores, 285 Or 481, 592 P2d 196 (1979)

Decree was not final and ap­pealable, so as to require dismissal of ap­peal not filed within 30 days under this sec­tion, where, inter alia, decree provided that court retained jurisdic­tion of matter until escrow was closed, plaintiff could apply to court for supple­mental decree transferring deed if defendant failed to execute it or escrow instruc­tions, and decision on award of attorney fees was reserved until review. David M. Scott Construc­tion v. Farrell, 285 Or 563, 592 P2d 551 (1979)

Time for filing notice of ap­peal is to be computed from date of clerk's entry of judg­ment in journal pursuant to [former] ORS 18.030. Blackledge v. Harrington, 289 Or 139, 611 P2d 292 (1980)

Mo­tions for reconsidera­tion or to vacate and set aside judg­ment were not ap­pealable orders and do not extend time for filing an ap­peal. Credit Bureau v. Marshall, 53 Or App 46, 630 P2d 910 (1981)

When clerk of court docketed judg­ment in judg­ment docket, which had been consolidated with the journal, that act constituted "entry of the judg­ment" within meaning of this sec­tion. Henson and Henson, 61 Or App 210, 656 P2d 345 (1982)

Where judg­ment is amended, time for filing ap­peal commences on date of amend­ment if rights or obliga­tions determined under original decree are ma­te­ri­ally altered or addi­tional ap­peal right is created. Mullinax and Mullinax, 292 Or 416, 639 P2d 628 (1982); State v. Christopherson, 159 Or App 428, 978 P2d 1039 (1999); Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP v. Stoelk, 193 Or App 700, 92 P3d 154 (2004)

Mo­tion for reconsidera­tion of trial court's final order does not extend time for filing notice of ap­peal under this sec­tion. Portello and Portello, 62 Or App 475, 660 P2d 1098 (1983)

If order disposing of mo­tion for judg­ment notwithstanding verdict is entered before judg­ment, time limit for ap­peal following denial of mo­tion does not have effect of shortening time for ap­peal following entry of judg­ment. Yarbrough v. The Oregon Bank, 64 Or App 370, 668 P2d 451 (1983)

"Mo­tion to reconsider," although treated as mo­tion for new trial, did not toll running of ap­peal period under this sec­tion because mo­tion was improper under ORCP 64F, having been filed more than 10 days after judg­ment. Schmidling v. Dove, 65 Or App 1, 670 P2d 166 (1983)

Procedural distinc­tion between law and equity having been abolished, "mo­tion for reconsidera­tion" seeks same ruling contemplated by mo­tion for new trial and can toll ap­peal period. Schmidling v. Dove, 65 Or App 1, 670 P2d 166 (1983)

Clerk's failure to notify counsel of entry of judg­ment does not create excep­tion to this sec­tion. Junc­tion City Water Control v. Elliot, 65 Or App 548, 672 P2d 59 (1983); Amvesco, Inc. v. Key Title Co., 69 Or App 740, 687 P2d 1121 (1984); U.S. Na­tional Bank v. Heggemeier, 106 Or App 693, 810 P2d 396 (1991)

Mo­tion for reconsidera­tion to the tax court is not analogous to mo­tion for new trial and does not have the effect of suspending 30 day period within which ap­peals must be taken. Multistate Tax Comm. v. Dow Chemical Co, 295 Or 831, 671 P2d 108 (1983)

Extended filing period for ap­peal from denial of mo­tion for new trial applies to ap­peal from summary judg­ment. Scheid v. Harvey, 73 Or App 481, 698 P2d 991 (1985)

Because clerk failed to date entry, there was no basis to determine date of entry of order and therefore nothing to determine when ap­peal time began to run under this sec­tion. Simpson v. Simpson, 299 Or 578, 704 P2d 509 (1985)

"Entry of judg­ment" under this sec­tion refers to entry in journal and, in absence of journal, 30-day period runs from date of entry in judg­ment docket. Gordon v. Schumaker, 77 Or App 435, 713 P2d 658 (1986)

Where trial court entered supple­mental judg­ment allowing plaintiff's costs, disburse­ments and attorney fees and defendant, more than 30 days after entry of supple­mental judg­ment, filed mo­tion for relief from default and amended notice of ap­peal from supple­mental judg­ment, mo­tion was properly denied because 30-day time limit for filing notices of ap­peals set by this sec­tion applies and court was without authority to extend it. Jansen v. Atiyeh, 302 Or 314, 728 P2d 1382 (1986)

Where court's review involved only issues of law, mo­tion for new trial did not toll time for ap­peal. Alt v. City of Salem, 86 Or App 627, 740 P2d 216 (1987), aff'd 306 Or 80, 756 P2d 637 (1988)

Order granting mo­tion to set aside summary judg­ment is an ap­pealable judg­ment or decree and is equivalent to order granting "new trial" within statute allowing ap­peal from order setting aside judg­ment granting new trial. Carter v. U.S. Na­tional Bank, 304 Or 538, 747 P2d 980 (1987)

This sec­tion does not by its terms extend time to ap­peal when "mo­tion for reconsidera­tion" has been filed and any docu­ment not clearly labeled as mo­tion for new trial or judg­ment notwithstanding verdict will not extend 30-day period for filing notice of ap­peal under this sec­tion. Alternative Realty v. Michaels, 90 Or App 280, 753 P2d 419 (1988)

Where court issues order granting new trial, sub­se­quent entry of judg­ment does not extend time for filing ap­peal from order that disposed of mo­tion. E.A. Mock & Sons, Inc. v. Mehdizadehkashi, 91 Or App 453, 755 P2d 739 (1988)

Order by tax court dismissing complaint does not itself commence time in which notice of ap­peal must be filed because that time commences upon entry of judg­ment in register. NW Medical Lab. v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 307 Or 448, 770 P2d 905 (1989); NW Medical Lab. v. Healthlink, 307 Or 455, 770 P2d 908 (1989)

Filing of notice of ap­peal before entry of final judg­ment on register does not comply with time limit for filing ap­peal and is therefore ineffective. S. W. v. Schellenberg, 152 Or App 33, 952 P2d 567 (1998)

Notice of ap­peal filed before time to ap­peal commences is jurisdic­tionally defective. Welker v. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, 332 Or 306, 27 P3d 1038 (2001)

Where notice of ap­peal is filed prematurely, appellate court has jurisdic­tion to decide merits of ap­peal without first requiring filing of new notice of ap­peal if, when initial notice of ap­peal was filed, trial court intended to enter an ap­pealable judg­ment. Associa­tion of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, 242 Or App 425, 256 P3d 146 (2011), aff'd 352 Or 583, 288 P3d 859 (2012)

If summary judg­ment ruling does not examine issue of fact in way that constitutes "trial" under ORCP 64, plaintiff's mo­tion for reconsidera­tion of summary judg­ment ruling under this sec­tion does not constitute "mo­tion for new trial." Associa­tion of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, 352 Or 583, 288 P3d 859 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 652 (1972)

Chapter 19

Notes of Decisions

This chapter does not apply to workers' compensa­tion pro­ceed­ings since it governs appellate review of lower court decisions and not decisions of administrative tribunals. SAIF v. Maddox, 60 Or App 507, 655 P2d 214 (1982), aff'd 295 Or 448, 667 P2d 529 (1983)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 19—Appeals, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors019.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 19, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano019.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.