Case law

Hernandez-Devereaux v. Astrue

614 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 23, 2009

The initial burden of establishing disability rests upon the claimant. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 . … He later qualified this statement by hedging, stating that he did not “really have anything in the record that would help [him] make judgment one way or the other on that.” Tr. 720. Dr.

Gleason v. Filter Holdings, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 14, 2024

On March 30, 2023, Gleason responded that she was planning on spending spring break with her family, that she had a medical emergency arise, but that she did not qualify for medical leave. (Id. at 8-9.) … “However, use of a single comparator is not clearly erroneous unless an 18 At oral argument, Gleason clarified that she does not allege a pay equity claim based on her short time in the position of Senior Account Director

Doe v. Trump

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 13, 2020

The Court set a deadline for Defendants to supplement the administrative record and also established a supplemental briefing schedule for this motion. Id. Defendants did not supplement the administrative record. … Similarly, the State Department provided guidance to consular officers that “coverage by a family member’s health plan qualifies as approved health insurance.

Garcia v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 18, 2022

Applicable Law The Ninth Circuit has “established a two-step analysis for determining the extent to which a claimant’s symptom testimony must be credited[.]” … May 10, 2017) (finding the claimant’s reliance on Brown-Hunter “unavailing,” and stating that although “the ALJ’s opinion could have more clearly stated each reason and how it served to discount Plaintiff’s credibility,

Good Clean Love, Inc. v. Audacious Beauty, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 2024

Notice was clearly received. … Indursky would qualify, based on the representations on Defendant’s website, as reasonably calculated to give Defendant notice of this action.

Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2023

Rule 702 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 … challenge because “defendant's response brief is an unauthorized supplemental expert disclosure, filed more than four months past the…deadline for expert report disclosures and less than three weeks before trial, and clearly

United States v. Aquatherm GmbH

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 5, 2022

Sakura Reefer et al. points out, had the Advisory Committee meant to limit the scope of Rule 4(k)(2) to federal question claims, it clearly could have done so. … It does not establish personal jurisdiction if the only claims are those arising under state law or the law of another country. . . .”

Eisele v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2022

These cases establish that an action is willful if it is fully knowing, intentional, and voluntary. … Clearly, a malicious action or one taken in bad faith qualifies.

The Fideliter

8 F. Cas. 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 1869

return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities … But if Lugebil really owned this vessel, it is but reasonable to assume that self interest, at least, would have induced him to come before this court and testify as to the facts and circumstances which would establish such

Western Watersheds Project v. Bernhardt

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2019

OHA found that the criminal convictions were enough to establish violations of governing regulations. … The CX also concluded that the Permit was “in conformance with the [land use plans], qualifies as a categorical exclusion, and does not require further NEPA analysis.”

Boles

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 4, 2026

Rice’s treatment notes alone fails to establish that he meets either Listing 12.04 or 12.15, and the claimant bears the burden of establishing he meets a listing. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 683. … The ALJ also noted that the opinion did not “clearly separate out [Plaintiff]’s mental health functioning during periods of substance abuse[.]”

Latif v. Holder

28 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 24, 2014

In that Opinion and Order the Court concluded Plaintiffs established the first factor under Mathews v. … Clearly, additional procedural safeguards would provide significant probative value. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 .

Chao v. Westside Drywall, Inc.

709 F. Supp. 2d 1037 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 13, 2010

When a statement is hearsay within hearsay, or double hearsay, each statement must qualify under some exemption or exception to the hearsay rule. FRE 805; United States v. … “The Bonnette factors are properly applied where an individual is clearly employed by one of several entities and the only question is which one.” Morgan v. F.T.

Stephens v. Standard Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon · May 21, 2021

Here, the “trust” is Standard’s ERISA-qualifying benefits plan, and the “trustee” is Standard’s plan administrator. … pay those benefits if it determines that the claimant qualifies.

WaterWatch of Oregon v. Winchester Water Control District

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 22, 2021

Pointing to various statutes, Defendant “submits that a four-year statute of limitations period should be inferred but, even if a six-year period is utilized, Plaintiffs’ claims are nonetheless clearly time- barred.” … She also found dismissal inappropriate because “it would mean that [the agency] could immunize its allegedly unreasonable delay [in complying with statutory duties] from judicial review simply by extending that delay for

Green v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2024

Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The revised social security regulations are clearly irreconcilable with our caselaw according special deference to the opinions of treating and examining physicians on account … Stowell, are more qualified than myself to make these determinations.

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Sabo

854 F. Supp. 2d 889 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2012

It is true, as plaintiffs assert, that, “[t]he preservation of our environment, as required by NEPA and NFMA, is clearly in the public interest.” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. … He stated that the project qualified to be excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA, citing a regulation. Parties responded to the scoping letter and to the issue of cattle grazing on Round Meadow.

Lares v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2024

The Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. … If anything, Plaintiff qualifying for housing with an organization committed to helping people with psychiatric disabilities is consistent with his mental health allegations.

Colcord v. Premera Blue Cross

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 29, 2019

Ultimately, when the relationship is not clearly centered in one location, this factor bears little weight. See Veridian, 295 F. Supp. 3d at 1154. … Under Alaska law, “[p]arties do not undertake obligations contained in a separate document unless their contract clearly says so. . . .

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Sevcik

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2021

Thus, even if Morgan Stanley clearly established that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, it would not be entitled to its requested relief. I. … Davidson postcards arguably qualify an indirect attempt to solicit. They appear to be D.A. Davidson’s “initiation of contact with” at least one “customer” on Sevcik’s behalf.