Case law

Miller v. Mallery

410 F. Supp. 1283 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 5, 1976

Clearly, “the man-caused risk is higher than lightning right now,” (Wilson Depo. p. 38) as shown by statistics from 1960 to 1973 in the Bull Run. … The defendants have responded with statements of policy and purpose, not with evidence that establishes a protective practice. 11 *1297 VII.

Roisland v. Flagstar Bank, FSB

989 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 26, 2013

Brandrup and Niday establish that MERS cannot legally hold this beneficial interest, however. … In this case, the deed of trust clearly provides that “[t]he Note or a partial interest in the Note . (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.”

Cisneros

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 21, 2026

established federal law. … For all of these reasons, the PCR court’s decision is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law and habeas relief is denied in its entirety.

Vidal v. Safeway, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2021

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case indirectly by showing: “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated … Vidal’s opposition to that racial harassment was clearly protected activity . . . . Raising one’s voice to request assistance and oppose racially harassing conduct is protected activity.”); see also id. at 15 (“Mr.

Singh v. Washburn

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 30, 2020

Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Keenan did not clearly establish that constant illumination violates the Eighth Amendment when done for a legitimate penological purpose. … The prohibition against retaliatory punishment for filing grievances is “clearly established law.”

Porteous v. Flowers Foods, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2025

In sum, the Court concludes that the Distributor Agreement qualifies as a contact of employment and Plaintiff qualifies as a transportation worker such that § 1 of the FAA will apply. … The text and context both clearly establish that the FAA is to be given primacy, and that Oregon law applies only so long as it is not inconsistent with the FAA.

Pacificorp v. Northwest Pipeline GP

879 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 16, 2012

There are clearly questions of fact about the first and second steps of the causal chain. … (illustrating the distinction between lay and expert opinion testimony by noting that “a lay witness with experience could testify that a substance appeared to be blood, but that a witness would have to qualify as an expert

Meyer v. Mittal

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2023

Emails qualify as electronic communication. See Theofel, 359 F.3d. at 1075. e. … Relevant here, an entity other than an ISP may qualify as a “provider” of ECS.5 To clarify the types of entities that may qualify as a provider of ECS, the Court next considers § 2701 in relation to other provisions

United States ex rel. Berglund v. Boeing Co.

835 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 13, 2011

Moreover, the legislative history clearly indicates Congress intended an inquiry similar to other whistle blower statutes. … See, e.g., Leon, 464 F.3d at 959 (the relevance of destroyed documents cannot be clearly ascertained). 5.

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

529 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 21, 2007

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 Noerr-Pen-nington immunity to litigation-related activi *1261 ties prior to formal commencement of litigation). 18 .

Clark v. GSL Properties, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2024

preliminary screening of an in forma pauperis complaint and dismiss any claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, are frivolous or malicious, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … “A plaintiff can establish a FHA discrimination claim under a theory of disparate treatment or disparate impact.” Id. (citing Gamble, 104 F.3d at 304-05).

Blumenkron v. Multnomah County

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2021

To violate substantive due process, particularly for land use regulation, government action must be clearly arbitrary and irrational. Kawaoka, 17 F.3d at 1234. … Sovereign Immunity for State Defendants State Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims against them must be dismissed because they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

NRC Environmental Services Inc. v. Barnards Holdings, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 12, 2022

Oil qualifies and is regulated as a “solid waste.” 5. … NRC has not established that any additional damages were caused by WTS’ breach. 4.

Tapia-Martinez v. Taylor

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 2020

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 a set of facts that … Given this history, Petitioner cannot establish that Oregon’s state courts unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law when they issued rulings consistent with Apodaca

Godfrey

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 12, 2026

established by medical evidence.’” … (See Pl.’s Br. at 17, suggesting Plaintiff qualifies for an equivalency listing for an endocrine disorder; see id. at 18, suggesting Plaintiff qualifies for an equivalency listing for a mental disorder).

Marvin Jennings v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2026

The Court first evaluates whether the language in the instant contract clearly and unmistakably delegates issues of waiver by litigation conduct to the arbitrator. … authentication from a qualified records custodian of that entity.” Pl.’s Resp. 13.

Waldo

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2026

Required Parties “Rule 19(a)(1) defines ‘required party,’ and establishes two broad categories of required parties.” Ward v. … Instead, whether ATTM is a required party depends on whether ATTM’s interests qualify for protection under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i).” Id. at 1050.

J.B. v. Gray

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 29, 2024

Kaplan, the Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiff had no clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment to be provided with a mattress. No. 93-17123, 1995 WL 398878, at *2 (9th Cir. July 7, 1995). … In finding that such a right was not clearly established, the court looked to cases from other circuits and determined that those cases focused primarily on the conditions that accompanied the mattress deprivation to determine

Smith v. Healy

744 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 7, 2010

Despite the fact that state law protection was available for ideas which clearly fell within the subject matter of patent, the Court concluded that the nature and degree of state protection did not conflict with the federal … The door light design is a trade secret that qualifies as information that derives economic value from not being generally known to the public, because it is a design that has significant consumer market potential and Plaintiffs

Krone v. Legacy Health

District Court, D. Oregon · May 6, 2025

After the COVID-19 pandemic began, French established and oversaw COVID-19 transmission mitigation policies in four California emergency departments. … article concludes that, because respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2 (and the common flu) rapidly evolve, current vaccines “elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity