Case law

Parkerson v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2021

Feb. 22, 2021) (“The few courts that have considered the issue agree that prisoner-plaintiffs who proceed together in one action must each pay the full filing fee which means they must, at the very least, qualify to proceed … The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and number 1 Parkerson has also filed a motion for class certification (ECF No. 8).

Sym-Agro, Inc. v. Seipasa, S.A.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 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.” … Defendant has developed a product called Seican, which Plaintiff alleges is “biologically and effectively” the same product as Cinnerate and therefore qualifies as a new or modified version of Cinnerate.

Lofall v. Clackamas County

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2025

“Within eight minutes of their arrival, without conducting a thorough investigation or establishing probable cause,” Blyth and Gunnarson “arrested [Lofall] on allegations of harassment.” (Id. at 24-25.) … Portlock moves to dismiss Lofall’s relevant claims on the grounds that the statute of limitations bars his claims, and she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. (See generally Mot.

Powell v. System Transport Inc.

83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 26, 2015

She clearly differentiated between the statute System Transport relied upon and the statute she asserts controls the reimbursement issue currently at issue. … That contingency is clearly stated in the Policy’s choice-of-law provision and it is realized here.

United States v. EK

471 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 1979

However, since the presumption is that an offender of a certain age is a juvenile, the facts ought to clearly convince one on the side of these conclusions in order to warrant transfer. … After considerable time and sustained effort, several youth workers (and the psychiatrist) felt they had established trust and general rapport with E.K.

Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.

332 F. Supp. 3d 1280 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 18, 2018

A court must presume "that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. … In Penn Plaza , the Supreme Court held that a collective bargaining agreement that "clearly and unmistakably" requires union members to arbitrate specific claims is enforceable. Id. at 274 , 129 S.Ct. 1456 .

Rodriguez v. Hunt

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 22, 2024

Defendants’ purported evidence fails to establish that any of the destroyed ESI was relevant to the litigation. … [destroyed] documents cannot be clearly ascertained because the documents no longer exist,’ a party “can hardly assert any presumption of irrelevance as to the destroyed documents.” Leon v. IDX Sys.

Oregon Laborers-Employers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.

188 F.R.D. 365 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 1, 1998

Specifically, defendants assert that plaintiffs have failed to explain: (1) which elements of their causes of action can be established for all putative class members based solely on evidence from the named plaintiffs; (2 … Defendants do not argue that plaintiffs’ attorneys are insufficiently qualified to prosecute this suit and the materials submitted by plaintiffs on this point demonstrate just the opposite.

Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2019

Iijima is a qualified witness under FRE 803(d) and FRE 902(11). It does not matter that she works for defendants’ parent company or has changed roles or job titles. … Conversely, defendants have established good cause to quash the Iijima deposition. Discovery has closed. Briefing on pending dispositive motions is nearly complete.

United States v. Detwiler

338 F. Supp. 2d 1166 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 5, 2004

This stealth route clearly was intended to prevent close scrutiny of the Feeney Amendment, or a fair opportunity to oppose the measure. … Nonetheless, judges are duty-bound to act when the political balance established by our Constitution is threatened.

Colasanti v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 2023

In Oregon, a person “may not be employed as a police officer . . . for more than 18 months” without being “certified as being qualified as a police officer” pursuant to standards established by the Board on Public Safety … However, the ADA “does not require that a person meet each of an employer’s established ‘qualification standards,’ . . . to show that he is ‘qualified.’” Bates, 511 F.3d at 990.

Lepesh v. Davidson

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2020

A party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … Lepesh’s Third Amended Complaint; and (V) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on all access to the court claims. Mot. Summ. J. [64] at 2.

Crockett v. Portland Police

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2020

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United states . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Plaintiff should clearly indicate in his third amended complaint whether he seeks to bring a Title VI claim, a section 1983 claim for violating his right to equal protection, or both.

Osborn ex rel. Petit v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

160 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 2016

Here, Section 9.2 clearly grants MetLife discretion to determine eligibility for benefits under the Participating Life and AD & D Insurance Plan. … One of the issues before the court in Gomez was whether the plaintiffs accident policy qualified as life insurance under RCW 48.11.020 or disability insurance under RCW 48.11.030. See id. at 1155.

Cocina Cultura LLC v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 2020

Defendant The Contingent offered to post a bond with this Court equaling “the maximum grant for which plaintiff would have qualified if it were otherwise eligible to receive funds” ($42,985.00), “plus one year’s worth of … Plaintiff’s interests are protected by The Contingent’s deposit of monies from the Fund into the Court’s registry and the Defendants’ representation that sovereign immunity will not interfere with any future dispersal

Bohner v. Daniels

243 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 6, 2003

As to Subsection (A), it has already been established that the 1997 rule was not an interpretive rule or a general statement of policy. Gunderson, 268 F.3d at 1154 ; Grier, 46 Fed.Appx. at 440 . … An agency may rely upon harmless error “only when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of the decision reached.”

Thompson ex rel. Thorpe Family Charitable Remainder Unitrust v. Federico

324 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 2004

At the outset, the court rejects defendants’ position that there are no material issues of fact regarding whether plaintiff clearly instructed Federico to sell the Trust’s equity holdings. … Evidence qualifies as “clear and convincing” when the “ ‘truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.’ ” Simpson v.

Berlant v. U.S. Department of Commerce

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 30, 2024

Complying with these requirements, Defendants have submitted, under penalty of perjury, a detailed declaration from a qualified individual, Dana S. … To qualify as confidential, the receiving party may also have had to provide “some assurance that it will remain secret.” Argus Leader, 588 U.S. at 434.

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 26, 2023

Because she did not establish presumptive disability at step three, the ALJ continued to evaluate how plaintiff’s impairments affected her ability to work. … Jan. 16, 2020) (doctor’s opinion that the claimant had certain “problems” did not qualify as a concrete functional imitation). Nor do Mr.

Curto v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union

107 F. Supp. 805 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 2, 1952

The union card does not entitle any defendant to immunity for the results of acts of physical violence. The jury spoke for the public here. The result is reasonable and must be sustained. … The party himself may have been misinformed, he may not have clearly expressed his meaning, or the witness may have misunderstood him.