2017 ORS 43.130¹
Judicial orders that are conclusive

The effect of a judgment, decree or final order in an action, suit or proceeding before a court or judge of this state or of the United States, having jurisdiction is as follows:

(1) In case of a judgment, decree or order against a specific thing or in respect to the probate of a will or the administration of the estate of a deceased person or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or relation of a particular person, the judgment, decree or order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition or relation of the person.

(2) In other cases, the judgment, decree or order is, in respect to the matter directly determined, conclusive between the parties, their representatives and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, suit or proceeding, litigating for the same thing, under the same title and in the same capacity.

Notes of Decisions

Individuals in privity with named parties include those who control in ac­tion though not a party to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the ac­tion, and successors in interest to those having derivative claims. Gaul v. Tourtellotte, 260 Or 14, 488 P2d 416 (1971)

In determining whether a sec­ond ac­tion is upon the same “cause of ac­tion” as the first, “cause of ac­tion” means an aggregate of operative facts which compose a single occasion for judicial relief. Dean v. Exotic Veneers, Inc., 271 Or 188, 531 P2d 266 (1975)

Administrative hearing is not court and hearings of­fi­cer in executive branch agency is not judge and this sec­tion has no applica­tion to administrative pro­ce­dure for suspension of license when driver refuses breath test when suspected of driving while intoxicated. State v. Ratliff, 304 Or 254, 744 P2d 247 (1987)

Defendant, assignee of vendor’s interest in land sale contract, was not bound by judg­ment against assignor for fraud in sale of prop­erty where defendant received its interest in contract prior to commence­ment of ac­tion against assignor and was not made party thereto. Gerke v. Burton Enterprises, Inc., 97 Or App 629, 776 P2d 879 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

When plaintiffs did not ap­peal decision by Court of Appeals that all claims in complaint were subject to exclusive federal jurisdic­tion, sub­se­quent dismissal by federal district court of some of those claims as pendant state law claims did not act to revive claims barred by claims preclusion. Van De Hey v. U.S. Na­tional Bank, 313 Or 86, 829 P2d 130 (1992)

Completed Cita­tions

Wagner v. Savage, 195 Or 128, 244 P2d 161 (1952), overruled by Dean v. Exotic Veneers, Inc., 271 Or 188, 531 P2d 266 (1975); Jarvey v. Mowrey, 235 Or 579, 385 P2d 336 (1963), overruled by Dean v. Exotic Veneers, Inc., 271 Or 188, 531 P2d 266 (1975)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 43—Public Writings, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors043.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 43, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano043.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.