Case law

Tomlinson

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 6, 2026

Under that framework, Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating (1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for her position; (3) that she experienced … Thus, in evaluating whether Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the Court focuses on whether Plaintiff was qualified for her position and whether Defendant treated similarly situated

Wyatt B. v. Kotek

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 27, 2021

The weight of authority clearly demonstrates that the rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, though significant, are strictly limited in scope. … Accordingly, the Court concludes that the “case review system” requirement established by §§ 671(a)(16) and 675(5)(A) are subject to enforcement under § 1983.

Adidas-America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.

546 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2008

distinctive marks may qualify for protection; (3) a reconfiguration of the factors used to determine whether a mark is famous for dilution purposes, including a rejection of dilution claims based on "niche” fame; and (4) … DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 936-38 (9th Cir.2006) (extending Noen-Pennington immunity to litigation-related activities prior to formal commencement of litigation). 19 .

Tharp v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 2021

Specifically, the motions dispute whether Plaintiff can establish two elements required to trigger air carrier liability under the Montreal Convention: (1) that the alleged assault qualifies as an “accident”; and (2) … I don’t think he meant to, just clearly a perk of this seat and lovely interaction… Or his pot pretzels and loss of motor skills…” Id.

Kinkel v. Long

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 6, 2022

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if it identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v. … Even if Graham applies to aggregate sentences similar to Kinkel’s, it is not clearly established that Kinkel’s Attempted Murder convictions qualify as non-homicide offenses for which a juvenile offender may not be sentenced

Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · May 16, 2024

Background Principles “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. … See, e.g., ECF 31 at 24 (asserting that OHA “has complete and standardless discretion” to define what qualifies as a “transaction”); id. at 25 (asserting that “whether a contract will qualify as a ‘material change transaction

Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 12, 2023

Further, when a plaintiff requests a “mandatory injunction,” the “already high standard” to obtaining injunctive relief is “further, heightened,” and the plaintiff must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her … At the pleading stage, the plaintiff must “clearly ... allege facts demonstrating” each element. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016.).

Bordelon v. Airgas USA, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 9, 2022

Milam is qualified to give expert testimony on these issues based on his training and experience. ECF 28 at 12–14. … Stephens is not providing a medical opinion—which no party asserts he is qualified to do. Mr.

Giustina Land & Timber Co., LLC v. Eugene Water & Electric Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2025

“Section 2675(a) establishes explicit prerequisites to the filing of suit against the Government in district court. It admits of no exceptions.” Cadwalder, 45 F.3d at 300. … Defendant argues that “Plaintiffs were free to hire their own forensic investigator, and indeed, they allege they hired ‘qualified experts’ to investigate the Holiday Farm Fire.” Def.

Cascadia Wildlands v. United States Forest Service

937 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 21, 2013

Further, the FWS reported that the Project would have repercussions on individual nest sites, and the EA and FONSI clearly disclose .these findings. AR 13494-98, AR 15244. … Finally, plaintiffs argue that the proposed thinning in Riparian Reserves threatens a violation of ACS Objective 8, therefore qualifying the potential effects of the Project significant.

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

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 17, 2020

First, the witness is qualified if he or she has expertise in the precise pertinent art at issue. … Windauer’s testimony or independently establishes an invention date.

Menchu v. Multnomah County Health Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2024

The on-call interpreters pointed out that they were required to be qualified, and had obtained the necessary credentials to become qualified. (Bannon Moore Decl. Ex. 5 at 20.) … First, the plaintiff must establish his prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

THOMPSON EX REL. THORP FAMILY CHARIT. 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.

Cooper v. Garcia-Cash

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 2023

Plaintiff has yet to serve Rogers and the Court doubts Rogers qualifies as an individual “acting under color of state law” subject to liability under section 1983. … “[T]here is a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.” Richards v.

Bevacqua v. Hillsboro Aero Academy, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 10, 2025

Complete preemption requires showing that “Congress clearly manifested an intent to convert state law claims into federal-question claims.” Ansley, 340 F.3d at 862. … airplane crash instead raises “fact-bound and situation-specific” questions about whether conduct satisfied the applicable standard of care under the circumstances, Empire HealthChoice, 547 U.S. at 701, which does not qualify

Dougherty v. Aleutian Homes, Inc.

210 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 20, 1962

That the plaintiff Bettinger had in mind the use of his pow *669 er as Mayor is established by substantial evidence. 27 Plaintiffs make some claim that the real sponsoring agency was the Alaska Housing Authority and that … We first satisfied ourselves that they were qualified as to construction experience and financial ability.

Archie v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 8, 2024

The record contains hundreds of pages of observations from Plaintiff’s Qualified Mental Health Professional who detailed their sessions. Tr. 1815-2050. … The ALJ “may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only when [that] conclusion is ‘clearly established by medical evidence.’” Webb, 433 F.3d at 687 (citation omitted).

Wolfe v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 8, 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 Court thus declines to reach Wolf’s argument on qualified immunity. b.

PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. LegitScript LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 3, 2024

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). … Further, even if the partial summary judgment opinion in the New York Case might qualify as “sufficiently firm” to warrant consideration for issue preclusion, LegitScript’s argument would still fail.

Granas v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 2025

Plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job as a trainman at Union Pacific. … The total clearly exceeds the $300,000 cap. 51.