Bradley Holcom v. Canby Builders Supply, an Oregon Corporation, et al.

An Oregon trial court stated on the record that Petitioner could preserve all five claims by filing an amended complaint by a date certain. Petitioner timely complied. Respondents nevertheless submitted a proposed order stating the opposite and dismissing multiple claims with prejudice. Before entry, Petitioner filed the transcript and formally objected that the proposed order misstated the court’s ruling. The order was nevertheless entered and remains uncorrected, although Respondents later acknowledged in a filed motion that it contradicted the ruling. The question presented is: Whether the Due Process Clause permits a State to leave in force—and require a litigant to proceed under—a facially preclusive order that contradicts the court’s recorded ruling, after the litigant timely satisfied the court’s express condition for preserving his causes of action and proved the contradiction before entry.