Case law

Wright v. Service Employees International Union Local 503

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 28, 2020

’ alternative argument regarding sovereign immunity. … It is presumed that a district court lacks jurisdiction and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Vacek v.

Guardado v. Fhuere

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2025

A state court decision is "contrary to . . . clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] cases" or "if the state court confronts … The Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision is therefore neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Toohey v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORP. HEALTH & WELFARE

727 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 26, 2010

ERISA requires that every employee subject to a qualifying plan receive an SPD. 29 USC § 1022 (a). … Thus, in order to be awarded BTA benefits, plaintiffs must establish that the airplane was "leased" by WWC.

Fluck v. Blevins

969 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 18, 1997

Problems arise, though, if it is not a cash settlement, for then the court must establish a value for the consideration received. … Of course, there may be circumstances where the result is so obvious that precise computation is not necessary, e.g., where the amount of the verdict, reduced by the settling defendants’ proportion of liability, is clearly

Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2020

It relieves a third party from patent infringement liability, and it acts as a waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to liability by the United States.”). … as the sole Government-approved supplier of the Accused Products;” (2) defendant “manufactured [the products] for, and sold them to, exclusively the Government or one of its contractors;” (3) “the Government tested, qualified

Salerno v. Douglas County Sheriff's Office

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 24, 2021

Defendants argue that there are no instances where Sheriff Hanlin made gender-based slurs, refused to hire a more qualified female over a less qualified male, or exhibited gender-based animus in the workplace. … Here, Plaintiff clearly expressed her opposition to the decision to promote Mr. Cross, which she has alleged constituted unlawful gender-based discrimination.

Financial Programs, Inc. v. Falcon Financial Services, Inc.

371 F. Supp. 770 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 5, 1974

It is a qualified secrecy arising from mutual understanding and required by good faith and good morals. Kamin v. Kuhnau, 232 Or. 139 , 374 P.2d 912, 918 (1962). … This evidence is clearly too speculative and conjectural to form a sound basis for an award of damages.

Gund

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2026

Plaintiff testified she could see the interpreter more clearly from where she was relocated and that this resolved her difficulties. … To establish a violation of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must (1) be a qualified individual with a disability, (2) be denied a reasonable accommodation that is needed “to enjoy meaningful access to the

Oregon Aero Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 24, 2025

Oregon courts have established three requirements to assert a claim of privilege: 1) the communication must have been between a client and the client's lawyer; 2) it must have been a confidential communication; and 3) it … It is a qualified immunity, not a privilege, that protects from disclosure "the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation

Feltner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2021

The court combined these two jobs to find that 25,000 jobs qualified as a significant number of jobs in the national economy. /d. at 529. … It also conflicts with her testimony that she could not work around people because she had “no immune system.”

McGee v. GREGORY FUNDING, LLC

692 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2010

In August 2006, plaintiff began shopping for a conventional loan; however, due to defendant Gregory not reporting the payment history on plaintiffs loan, he was unable to qualify for a refinance with another lender. … While true that section 1635(e)(2) limits a rescission of a refinance with no new advances, the Board’s regulation clearly states that new amounts financed that exceed the unpaid principal balance, any earned unpaid finance

Burns v. Thuney

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 21, 2023

The Bankruptcy Plan required PPV to be sold and directed that Plaintiff be paid $1,400,000 upon the sale of PPV and $500,000 upon the sale of Bravo or another qualifying event. … misconduct, and immunize themselves from future liability after their misconduct become known.

Hayes v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 3, 2021

ORDER AND OPINION   matter.2 Thus, the Court construes plaintiff’s argument to be that the Court clearly … Plaintiff also objects to the Court’s statement regarding defendant’s possible Eleventh Amendment Immunity regarding his claims based on Oregon state law in in the previous order.

T.L. ex rel. Lowry v. Sherwood Charter School

68 F. Supp. 3d 1295 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that to be actionable under Title IX, an educational institution’s response to harassment must be “ ‘clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances[.]’ ” Oden v. N. … To prove that a public program or service violated Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits

Kittelson v. Astrue

533 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 30, 2007

Stuart’s evaluation of Kittelson’s employability because he “has not established credentials as a vocational expert. Accordingly, he is not qualified to determine Mr. Kittelson’s ‘employability.’ ” Id. … Thus, if credited, this evidence clearly establishes that Kittelson is incapable of *1119 performing substantial gainful employment.

Century Indemnity Co. v. Marine Group, LLC

131 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 11, 2015

As Tribes clearly have the authority to pursue natural resource damage claims, they are not properly characterized as local governmental authorities. … The OECAA clearly contemplates an insurer subject to an allocation of costs has issued a “policy.”

Dry Bulk Singapore PTE. LTD. v. Amis Integrity S.A.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 28, 2022

“[A] party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing the [existence of an attorney-client] relationship and the privileged nature of the communication.” United States v. … Considering the cross-border nature of admiralty disputes, this Court is not inclined to invent an artificial distinction that only attorneys from the United States can qualify as “competent counsel” for the purposes of

Schultz v. NW Permanente P.C.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 2022

Plaintiff argues that it “required skills and experience in both employment law and trial practice” to “establish disability discrimination where there are performance issues caused by symptoms of a disability and the … Finally, the $237,000 verdict—although clearly a significant victory for Plaintiff and significantly more than the highest settlement amount—does not warrant an upward departure.

Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. v. COSCO Shipping (USA) Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2020

That SFI perhaps sustained greater damage to its business as a result does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance giving rise to equitable tolling. Cf. … Regardless, the record clearly reflects that SFI was well-aware of its claims within the limitations period.

Corbin

District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2026

Section 1983 liability “arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant” who, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution … Plaintiff then called police dispatch to request that a different officer be sent to the house because Palmeri “clearly didn’t believe a word that my kid said.” Id. ¶ 25.