Case law

Jones v. Target Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 28, 2023

P. 72(b)(2) (establishing the procedure for challenging a findings and recommendation and providing that a party may serve objections and the opposing party may serve a response to those objections, without providing that … For example, as Judge Russo describes, Plaintiff does not allege any description of the alleged sexual harassment incident to show that it was sufficiently severe to qualify as a single event hostile work environment.

United States v. Stringer

408 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 9, 2006

They argue that this prejudiced them because their Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to testify was removed; they lost the opportunity to seek immunity from, or to cooperate with the prosecution; they were unable … This case clearly falls within the scenario contemplated by the Supreme Court as a “violation of due process or a departure from proper standards in the administration of justice.”

Rose v. Patton

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2021

A serious medical “need exists if failure to treat the injury or condition ‘could result in further significant 4 In light of the Court’s holding, it does not address whether Defendants are immune from suit under … where the plaintiff alleged that the physician knew that “erratic behavior” was a side effect of the plaintiff’s medication yet discontinued the plaintiff’s low bunk restriction, and holding that the physician’s “decision qualifies

Sweat v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2023

A position that was not contrary to clearly established law is thus substantially justified.” Meza-Vazquesz v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2021) (simplified). … And there is no basis to conclude that these results qualified as significant probative evidence that the ALJ was required specifically to address. Kilpatrick’s attorney, Mr.

Lee v. Lampert

607 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2009

Respondent argues that Lee’s petition was not filed in time and therefore is proeedurally barred, and he does not qualify under the “actually innocent” gateway recognized in Schlup v. … Certain rulings also were contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. A.

O.M. v. National Women's Soccer League, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 17, 2021

To obtain a mandatory injunction, a plaintiff must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. (emphasis in original). … The Law and the Facts Clearly Favor Plaintiff’s Position Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s Age Rule violates § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. ECF 1 at ¶ 3.

Simms-Belaire v. Washington County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 25, 2024

The Court finds that NP Harris is qualified under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. … To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) [H]e is a qualified individual with a disability; (

Osborn v. Colvin

104 F. Supp. 3d 1104 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 22, 2015

Overall, the record clearly reflects a pattern of back pain ■ and predominantly left-sided radiculopathy over the relevant time period and beyond. … The ALJ and VÉ established at the second hearing that plaintiff had no transferable job skills. Tr. 413.

Hollingsworth v. Causey

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 2, 2022

A federal court may not grant habeas relief regarding any claim “adjudicated on the merits” in state court, unless the state court ruling “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v.

Dietrich v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2023

Rather, the state court’s application of clearly established federal law must be objectively unreasonable. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 (noting that “[i]t is past question” that the rule established in Strickland is clearly established federal law determined by the Supreme Court of the United States).

Douglas v. Thompson

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2024

“Retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of this right is itself a PAGE 7 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART constitutional violation, and prohibited as a matter of ‘clearly established … In the prison context, the action taken must be clearly adverse to the plaintiff.

NORTHWEST COAL. FOR ALTERN. TO PESTICIDES v. Lyng

673 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 1987

I cannot say that one set of experts is clearly more correct than the other; I am not expected to referee an academic dispute. … I have reviewed the Fourth Narrative Statement of Mary O'Brien (July 27, 1987) and I find her qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training and education.

Ahumada v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 4, 2024

Plaintiff argues that her “condition clearly meets the requirements of the Listings. … Indeed, as the Commissioner argues, “[a] generalized assertion of functional problems is not enough to establish disability at step three.” Id. (citing Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1100).

Menefee v. Washington County Jail

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 2020

entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Should plaintiff file an Amended Complaint curing the substantive deficiencies noted below, the Court advises plaintiff to clearly identify all intended defendants in the caption thereof.

Rogue Valley Stations, Inc. v. Birk Oil Co.

568 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 15, 1983

It is qualified to do and is doing business in Oregon. Cornitius is a California corporation doing business in Oregon. From about 1972 to December 15,1980, Cornitius operated as a Shell jobber in the Medford area. … “Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Commission v.

Camarata v. Portland Community College

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2020

immunity to Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims. … City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1993), establishes whether equitable tolling applies to his claims. Plaintiff is mistaken.

Braa v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 2023

Plaintiff seeks to establish disability discrimination under two theories: failure to accommodate and disparate treatment.4 As a threshold issue, Plaintiff must first establish that she is a “qualified individual” under … To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a qualified individual who can perform the essential functions of her job with or without accommodation,

Malaer v. Kirkpatrick

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 19, 2024

[required] to establish standing depends considerably upon whether the plaintiffis himself an object of the action... at issue. … Jackson County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01232-CL, this Court denied qualified immunity based on the Jail’s allegedly unconstitutional treatment of an inmate, The denial of qualified immunity is currently on interlocutory

White v. Dietrich

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2024

This Court also denies Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order as he has failed to establish standing and irreparable harm. … Namely, Plaintiff’s TRO request fails to establish standing and irreparable harm to Plaintiff or to any purported class member.

Noem

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2025

The APA does not waive immunity for claims seeking “money damages.” Dep’t of Educ., 604 U.S. at 651. Plaintiffs have clearly brought claims under the APA in their Complaint. But that is not dispositive. … These well-established APA remedies are not contractual in nature.”).