Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,488 results
0.32s
District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 1, 2023
The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … Because the Court concludes that Whetzel did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, it is not necessary for the Court to reach the question of qualified immunity raised by Defendants in their
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Feb 19, 2020
Jackson’s constitutional rights; (2) Defendants are entitled to qualified 4 —OPINION AND ORDER immunity; (3) Mr. Jackson did not administratively exhaust his claim that ODOC pits inmates against one another. Mot. … Jackson has not put forth facts which could establish that any defendant violated his constitutional rights, I do not reach the latter two arguments. I.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Feb 6, 2025
Second, it must assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( … Oregon law governs defamation actions, which are well-established as state law claims, and the federal courts do not recognize jurisdiction over them in the absence of a valid federal question.
Cited 0 timesUnknown107 F. Supp. 3d 1078 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2015
Defendants move for summary judgment on this first count on multiple bases, including statute of limitations, waiver, qualified immunity, and that, even after construing all evidence in Hoy’s favor, his claim fails as a matter … ,] establish!,] and enforce proper procedures and practices under Oregon law....” Id. at ¶ 74a.
Cited 0 timesPublished891 F. Supp. 550 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 22, 1995
Moreover, under Daubert, even the subjective opinion of a qualified engineer should be rejected if the opinion is wholly untested. See Stanczyk v. Black & Decker, 836 F.Supp. 565, 567 (N.D.Ill.1993). … Plaintiff is the duly appointed personal representative of the estate which has been established in Linn County, Oregon.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLarmanger v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 7, 2012
During Plaintiffs first week as PCM, McGowan told Plaintiff that he did not believe she was qualified for the position and he did not support her promotion. … Chetney could have remembered so clearly an event dating back over 6 months is unexplained.
Cited 12 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jul 7, 2023
A state-court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases,” or if it “confronts a set of facts that are materially … An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law occurs if the state court applies the correct legal principle to the facts of the case in an “objectively unreasonable manner.” Woodford v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Feb 6, 2025
Brooks argues that Plaintiff fails to allege or establish a substantial burden on his exercise of religion under RFRA and did not exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. … Brooks also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 1 Plaintiff’s claims against the other named Defendants were dismissed by the Court in a previous Order.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Oct 31, 2023
Second, it must assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( … A constitutional violation can arise from an official policy of a municipality through three distinct avenues: (1) when an employee’s actions align with a clearly established official policy; (2) when an employee
Cited 0 timesUnknownRoth v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
752 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2010
If such discretionary authority is clearly provided, then the denial is evaluated by an abuse of discretion standard. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 963 . … its address, and arguably providing the remedy of an appeal in the event of an adverse claims determination, neither ERISA Statement includes the required information about the terms of the Plan or its benefits so as to qualify
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Apr 8, 2026
“[A] complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.” Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownOwens v. The Oregon Clinic, P.C.
District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2022
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). … A routine, formal peer review process under which a health care entity evaluates, against clearly defined measures, the privilege- specific competence of all practitioners is not considered an investigation
Cited 0 timesUnknown845 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 29, 2012
In addition, they argue that ORS § 86.705(2) contains just a single restriction on who may be the beneficiary: the beneficiary “shall not be the trustee unless the beneficiary is qualified to be a trustee.” … And as Judge Alley observed in McCoy, it is reasonable to require that “the interest of the beneficiary is clearly documented in a public record” before permitting a foreclosure to proceed without judicial supervision.
Cited 8 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Mar 21, 2022
A plaintiff requesting a “mandatory injunction” must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. … Although Defendants argue that Hanna is no longer at risk of infection because he has now recovered from the virus, they present no evidence that one bout with the COVID-19 virus affords complete immunity to future infection
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 2020
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. … Motion for Preliminary Injunction The Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMendoza v. Reynolds School District
District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 7, 2025
See id. at 1180-81 (noting that absent “clearly irreconcilable intervening precedent of a higher authority, the three- judge panel was “bound by the rule set forth in Johns” and the plaintiff’s “only path to relief in … Mar. 5, 2015) (“[The self-represented plaintiff and parent] fails to identify which of her ‘rights, privileges, or immunities’ the [d]efendants infringed. . . .
Cited 0 timesUnknownColony Insurance Co. v. Victory Construction LLC
239 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2017
Therefore, carbon monoxide clearly and unambiguously fits within the definition of a “pollutant” under the Policy.”); Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. … However, the Oregon Supreme Court also qualified its statement: The fact remains, nevertheless, that it is but one of the many secondary rules for the construction of insurance contracts that have been established by court
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2026
discovery events—the date they realized that trusts have statutory immunity (November 6, 2025) and the date Klein acknowledged that he had not excavated the relevant property prior to recording (July 12, 2023)—but neither … STAT. § 12.110 (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for most torts).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 2025
App. at 386, n.1, the Oregon Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. Under Jackson v. … Petitioner fails to show that the Oregon Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jul 21, 2025
"In order to survive a motion for summary judgment on a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must establish a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant (1) acted under the color of state law, and (2) deprived him of a constitutional … Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. MSJ 10. Having resolved this case on the question of excessive force, however, the Court need not reach this issue.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna