Case law

Nguyen v. Columbia River People's Utility District

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 15, 2023

EXTENSION OF DEADLINES The Court expects the parties to meet all established deadlines. … If there are numerous contested exhibits, they shall be placed in a binder clearly marked as Plaintiff or Defendant’s exhibits.

Aguilar-Padilla v. Boydstun Equipment Manufacturing, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 21, 2024

See Tortu, 556 F.3d at 1085 (denying the defendant’s Rule 59 motion because the defendant raised his qualified immunity argument for the first time in post-trial motions, and it was a “legal matter [that] c[ould] not be … “We must uphold the jury’s finding unless the amount is grossly excessive or monstrous, clearly not supported by the evidence, or based only on speculation or guesswork.” Del Monte Dunes v.

United States v. Scheurer

55 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 20, 1944

Also, it is so established that the court made no such finding. … It is established that he said he would not fight against Germans on German soil.

Gordon v. Oregon Board of Parole

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 2025

An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law occurs if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle but misapplies that principle to the facts at hand. … Rather, the state court’s application of clearly established federal law must be objectively unreasonable.

Willamette Savings & Loan v. Blake & Neal Finance Co.

577 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 6, 1984

Avoidance of loss on either ground was clearly dependent upon the sound management and continued solvency of West Coast Schools. … Blake & Neal would qualify as an enterprise, as would Glenn individually. The third possibility would be for Blake & Neal and Glenn jointly to be the "enterprise.” 5 .

Tucker v. Oregon Aero, Inc.

474 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 2007

Despite extensive briefing by both parties, the precise terms of the oral agreement, other than the compensation provided under the oral argument, are not clearly established in the summary judgement record. … Clearly, on this record, there is a disputed issue of fact regarding the contribution plaintiff made to the patents.

Carey v. United Airlines, Inc.

77 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 8, 1999

Plaintiff believed he had no choice but to send his daughter back to her seat even though she was clearly in pain and was in tears. Plaintiff asked Jachnik to identify the FAA representative. … In summary, the court stated: the text of the Warsaw Convention establishes “bodily injury” as a precondition to recovery.

Portland Audubon Society v. Lujan

795 F. Supp. 1489 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 8, 1992

However, other qualified experts believe that the ISC’s conservation strategy is more that sufficiently protective. … However, other qualified experts believe that Dr.

Allen v. Purss

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 16, 2022

However, the work-product protection is not unlimited—“[it] is not a privilege but a qualified immunity . . . .” Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Arizona, 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir. 1989). … In addition, Defendant Purss has not offered any legal authority to object to Plaintiff’s ability to join Tesla 4 Defendant Purss also argues that she should not be required to produce “clearly attorney-client privileged

Ott v. Mortgage Investors Corp. of Ohio, Inc.

65 F. Supp. 3d 1046 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 3, 2014

“If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these prongs, personal jurisdiction is not established in the forum state. … The individual defendants have not established that Oregon is an unreasonable forum. viii.

United States v. Heine

314 F.R.D. 498 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 28, 2016

Moreover, given Agent Woodford’s testimony that he immediately called for backup, the tapes were clearly relevant to the defendant’s location and the official restraint defense. Id. at 1184. … The Ninth Circuit explained: The documents, if they existed, could have been used by Doe to help establish his state of mind.

Woodroffe v. Campa

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 10, 2021

An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes.” Barth v. … He does not allege sufficient facts, however, to establish that he has a qualifying disability as defined by the ADA or that O’Toole denied him PAGE 13 – ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pitchford Ex Rel. M. v. Salem-Keizer School District No. 24J

155 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 20, 2001

While she did not meet all the goals that had been established for her, she did make some progress. … That is the key requirement under the law, and it was clearly complied with here.

Slockish v. US Federal Highway Admin.

664 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 13, 2009

"In a case such as this, where the violation complained of may have caused continuing harm and where the court can still act to remedy such harm by limiting its future adverse effects, the parties clearly retain a legally … The Second and Third Claims allege that the FHWA and Garrett failed to employ a qualified archaeologist resulting in a failure to identify the cultural and historical resources in the project area.

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. Richmond

841 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 1993

Background Congress enacted the HCNRA Act in 1975, establishing the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, located generally along the Snake River in Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho. … In that case, the plaintiff organization clearly sought not just to compel the promulgation of a rule or regulation, but the promulgation of a rule or regulation having a particular content.

Slockish v. United States Federal Highway Administration

682 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 2010

“In a case such as this, where the violation complained of may have caused continuing harm and where the court can still act to remedy such harm by limiting its future adverse effects, the parties clearly retain a *1196 legally … The Second and Third Claims allege that the FHWA and Garrett failed to employ a qualified archaeologist resulting in a failure to identify the cultural and historical resources in the project area.

Eaton v. Eynon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 2022

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … It is clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit that “retaliatory actions taken against a prisoner for having exercised those rights” violate the First Amendment. Id.

Idaho Department of Fish & Game v. National Marine Fisheries Service

850 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 1994

Survival Once a suitable base period is established, NMFS must then look at the scope and nature of the proposed' “activity” submitted for consultation. … NMFS has clearly made an effort to create a rational, reasoned process for determining how the action agencies are doing in their efforts to save the listed salmon species.

Sierra v. Moreno

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 14, 2024

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips … A request for a mandatory injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored and shall not be granted unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S.

Harwood v. HOWARD GROUP, INC.

86 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 2000

Both states raise the bar fairly high: ... clauses which purport to exculpate an indemnitee from liability for losses flowing solely from his own acts or omissions are not favored and are to be clearly drawn and strictly … It is a firmly established rule that contracts of indemnity will not be construed to cover losses to the indemnitee caused by his own negligence unless such intention is expressed in clear and unequivocal terms.