Court Opinion

ID: 9794429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:05:32.928595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:36.076911
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, J.,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
Although I agree that a certificate of timely mailing is not conclusive on the question of mailing, I dissent from the decision to remand this case to the Court of Appeals.
Defendant-respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that “appellants did not meet the necessary *610requirements to establish jurisdiction by the Court of Appeals.” The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal “on the ground that appellants failed to timely serve the * * * notice of appeal on respondent.”
The Court of Appeals made no findings. In such case, if there is evidence from which facts could be decided more than one way, “this court will presume that the [Court of Appeals] found facts in a manner consistent with its ultimate conclusion.” State v. Carlson, 311 Or 201, 214, 808 P2d 1002, 1010 (1991). I read the Court of Appeals’ order to mean that the Court of Appeals found that the notice of appeal was not timely mailed; therefore, the notice of appeal was not timely served.1 Because there is evidence from which the Court of Appeals could have found that the notice of appeal was not timely mailed, that finding is implicit in its order. See also Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487, 443 P2d 621 (1968). I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ order dismissing the appeal.
Unis, J., joins in this opinion.

 The majority agrees that “[tjhere is evidence in the record that would support a finding that plaintiffs either did or did not comply with ORS 19.028(2) and ORCP 1.35(2).” 312 Or at 608.