Case law

Lemus v. Timberland Apartments, L.L.C.

876 F. Supp. 2d 1169 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 19, 2012

May, 111 F.3d 633 (9th Cir.1997), the case establishing the relevant standard for joint employment that this court applied in its merits analysis. (Dale Deck, # 106, ¶ 5.) … Thus, Section 653.055(4) is clearly applicable to defendants' request for attorney fees. .

Jensen v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 22, 2024

It provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other … In Plaintiff’s response, he concedes that he had some inability to clearly recall facts regarding the event. Plf. Resp. at 9. It is that shaky recollection Dr.

Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

Section 1983 Claims 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of … Plaintiff contends that “[m]otions to dismiss based on FRCP 12(b)(6) are clearly not appropriate to the factual basis and evidence in this case[,]” especially after reviewing “Docket 56,” plaintiff’s request for judicial

United States v. Yetisen

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 22, 2022

Therefore, when a court determines that a person does not qualify for citizenship, it has no equitable discretion “to ignore the defect and grant citizenship.” Fedorenko v. … No binding precedent clearly defines whether federal courts lack of discretion to confer citizenship precludes equitable defenses in denaturalization cases.

Jones-Jordan v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 5, 2020

Because he did not establish presumptive disability at step three, the ALJ continued to evaluate how plaintiff’s impairments affected his ability to work. … Lake’s opinion or incorporate her assessed limitations into the RFC, even though, as one of the few mental health specialists who examined plaintiff, her report clearly qualifies as both relevant and probative.

Ayers v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

869 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 19, 2012

Analysis Because the Policy defines disability broadly as any impairment that prevents an employee from “performing] all the material duties of his or her regular occupation,” the issue before the Court is not whether Ayers qualifies … Accordingly, LINA argues that both it and Allsup “clearly had an incentive to do what [they] could to help [Ayers’] SSDI claim succeed.” Id. at 9-10 .

Gililland v. Southwestern Oregon Community College District

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 3, 2021

to establish her breach of contract claim; and (3) Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish her IIED claim. … The party seeking spoliation sanctions bears the burden of establishing each element. Id.

Precision Conversions, LLC, an Oregon company, and 321 Precision Conversions, LLC, an Oregon company v. Mammoth Freighters, LLC, a Delaware company, William J. Wagner, an individual, and Wagner Aeronautical, Inc., a California corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2026

Precision alleges, encompasses all of the information generated over the many years it took to develop the 757 conversion program and obtain the STC—“tens of thousands of pages of documents [and] testing data generated in qualifying … when the complaint did not raise factual issues requiring discovery to resolve); Wood, 644 F.2d at 801 (acknowledging appropriateness of discovery stay where dispositive motions raise issues of jurisdiction, venue, or immunity

Morales Jimenez v. Noem

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 22, 2025

“Exhaustion is futile where continuing administrative proceedings would clearly be of no avail, . . . where there is “certainty of an adverse decision,” . . . or where there is “undisputed evidence of administrative bias … (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Precision Seed Cleaners v. Country Mutual Insurance

976 F. Supp. 2d 1228 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 1, 2013

If the meetings were not clearly overlapping, I did not deduct the time. When I found duplication, I awarded the time to the person with the higher billing rate. … Clearly, Millard & Bragg had the familiarity with the case to prepare the attorney fee petition.

United States v. Randall

27 F. Cas. 696 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 23, 1869

This court cannot say that in deciding these questions they were clearly wrong, or that they acted contrary to the evidence, and therefore it ought not to disturb their verdict. … It was only offered to qualify the effect of a circumstance- from which, with others, the jury were asked to infer the defendant’s guilt.

Torres v. National Frozen Foods Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · May 3, 2021

To establish a prima facie claim of discrimination Plaintiff must establish that: 1) she belongs to a protected class; 2) she was qualified for the position; 3) she was subject to an adverse employment action; and 4) similarly … To establish a prima facie claim for whistle blower retaliation under ORS 659A.199, an employee must establish: (1) her involvement in a protected activity; (2) an adverse employment 15 – OPINION AND ORDER

Lucero v. United States of America

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2022

Plaintiff alleges he was clearly disfigured with a deviated septum. He was bleeding and had difficulty breathing, and a piece of nasal cartilage fell out of his nose. … “If the case falls within a previously established context, the Bivens remedy is available.” Hoffman v. Preston, --- F.4th ---, 2022 WL 589309 (9th Cir. 2022).

Doe v. Trump

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 26, 2019

Congress established in § 1182(a) “classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission.” … This qualifies as sufficient irreparable harm. See E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1116 (N.D.

Bowden v. Genie Industries Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2022

Balog testified that during his treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff “was clearly not able to work.” Tr. 273. Dr. … records either were not hearsay or qualified for an exception.

Renfro v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2019

Plaintiff has trouble communicating clearly, although this issue has improved with treatment. Tr. 52. Plaintiff experiences panic in stressful situations, especially when dealing with unfamiliar people. Tr. 53-54. … As previously noted, Plaintiff did volunteer work and established good rapport with her treatment providers. See, e.g, Tr. 453, 456, 460.

Pinnacle Architecture, Inc. v. Hiscox, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 14, 2021

relationship arises out of the contact, Plaintiffs’ duty of care and potential liability does not arise out of the contract but is imposed by law and exists because of the nature of the parties’ relationship.3 Lifeways can clearly … claimed problem with the cabinets and woodwork was the result of that kind of breach [breach of a duty to act with due care], or that plaintiff might be liable to the owners in tort for other damage, that might have qualified

Hudson v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · May 1, 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, “a federal habeas court making the ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.”

Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America, Inc. v. Huntsman Propylene Oxide LLC

35 F. Supp. 3d 1316 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 2014

If the parties intend the term to describe the sole remedy under the contract, this must be clearly expressed. 3. … Section 2-302(1) is a broad provision establishing the test for considering whether any clause in a contract is unconscionable.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Stolfi

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 19, 2024

For each claim, PhRMA needs to establish standing. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. … But this record does not establish anything like the extraterritorial impact at issue in NCAA v.