Case law

Gibson v. Community Development Partners (CDP)

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 18, 2022

Nor does it immunize a pro se litigant from complying with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’” but does demand more than “‘labels and conclusions … To establish an FHA discrimination claim, a plaintiff can rely on three theories: (1) disparate treatment, (2) disparate impact, or (3) failure to make reasonable accommodations for handicapped housing. Gamble v.

Parsons v. PeaceHealth

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 2024

Defendant established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18. … Defendant then established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18.

Anderson

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 2, 2026

. § 2254(d)(1) (authorizing de novo federal habeas review of a state court decision if the decision is “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law); id. § 2244(d)(l)(A) (establishing … Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 3 Parole supervision typically qualifies as “custody” under § 2254. Comstock v.

Sano v. PeaceHealth, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 2024

Defendant established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18. … Defendant then established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18.

Parker v. PeaceHealth

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 5, 2024

Defendant established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18. … Defendant then established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18.

Goff v. PeaceHealth

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 2024

Defendant established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18. … Defendant then established a committee to review religious exemption requests and began processing such requests. Le Decl. ¶ 18.

Hulse v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 27, 2020

At step three of the sequential analysis, “a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is medically equivalent to a listed impairment—establishing a disability and ending the five-step inquiry—if the claimant’ … These are clearly inconsistent with an inability to ambulate effectively.

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2021

Consistent with that well-established standard, the Court will apply the presumption of regularity in assessing Plaintiff’s motion. I. … Plaintiff contends that, because Tischer has only been employed by the Forest Service since 2020, she is not qualified to certify the completeness of a record that predates her employment.

Burke v. Oregon Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2025

He answered [the questions] in a way that clearly showed he understood the questions. . . . … It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, satisfying the first element of both claims.

HUMANE SOCIETY OF US v. Gutierrez

625 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 25, 2008

Because section 120 clearly and unambiguously communicates Congressional intent, I do not evaluate the legislative history. … Instead, in their effort to establish standing, plaintiffs suggest that some of its members, including Ms.

Whittenberg v. Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2021

To qualify for DIB benefits, Plaintiff must establish that he was disabled under the Act between the alleged onset date of August 17, 2006 through September 30, 2008. … The rationale is clearly erroneous. Dr.

Mason v. Themarysue, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 4, 2022

However, the clauses in those cases were not accompanied by the further qualifier of the word “exclusively” contained in the clause at issue here. Instead, this case is more like Sixty-Two First St., LLC v. … These factors must establish that “extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly disfavor a transfer” to defeat defendant’s motion to transfer venue.

Rice v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2025

“An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, □□□□ not qualify.” Jd. … Against that backdrop, even though Plaintiff clearly interprets the evidence differently, she has 13 - Opinion and Order not (and cannot) establish error by simply advancing a different interpretation of the medical

Kim v. Beaverton School District 48J

District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2021

concentrating, thinking, writing, communicating, interacting with others, and working; and (ii) The operation of a major bodily function, such as the functions of the immune … “[T]he IDEA establishes formal procedures for resolving disputes” between parents and school officials concerning a child’s IEP. Id.

Gibson v. Schmidt

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2021

The state court proceedings here clearly implicate important state interests. Plaintiffs are charged in Oregon state courts with violating an Oregon criminal statute. See Gilbertson v. … Second, even if this Court were to apply the broader interpretation of the bad faith exception urged by Plaintiffs, this case would still not qualify.

Ahern v. Gaussoin

611 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 10, 1985

Those cases are clearly distinguishable because the attorney defendants in those eases were also directors and thus specifically subject to section 11. … Fisher’s remarks, whatever else one may say about them, do not qualify as a solicitation or the sort of “substantial participation” necessary to incur liability under section 12.

United States Trustee v. Boulders on the River, Inc. (In Re Boulders on the River, Inc.)

218 B.R. 528 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 1997

Clearly in Victoria Farms, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of preconfirmation fees alone and could not have known that the fee would later be extended to posteon-finnation periods. … To assure that an appropriate number of qualified individuals are fairly and impartially recruited and appointed to serve as private trustees.

Brandrup v. Starkey

30 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 1998

Accordingly, respondeat superior is not established and summary judgment is granted for Lattice as to Brandrup’s IIED claim. 6 B. … I qualify this statement with the acknowledgment that Title VII liability extends only to employers and not employees. Miller v.

Wheels Financial Group LLC v. Stolfi

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 2025

Accordingly, “[w]here vital state interests are involved, a federal court should abstain ‘unless state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.’” Lebbos v. … Plaintiffs are correct that, in the preliminary injunction context, courts have recognized that monetary injury is irreparable when sovereign immunity would bar a plaintiff from recovering money damages from a defendant

Green v. Miss United States of America, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 8, 2021

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). … Green from its beauty pageant qualifies as “expressive conduct” under the Spence test. Therefore, the next step is to apply O’Brien. B.