Case law

United States v. Vanbeenen

872 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 23, 2012

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the issue of restitution. … See, e.g., United States v.

In re Western Bond & Mortgage Co.

44 F. Supp. 89 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 17, 1941

See Alder Slope Ditch Co. v. Moonshine Ditch Co., 90 Or. 385, 387 , 176 P. 593 . W. A. Liller Bldg. Co. v. Reynolds, 4 Cir., 247 P. 90 , 91. Henry v. Dolley, 10 Cir., 99 E.2d 94. Title 11 U.S.C.A. § 110 . White v. … Jackson v. Budeling, 99 U.S. 513 , 25 L.Ed. 460 . See In re Medina Quarry Co., D.C., 179 F. 929, 933 . Board of Commissioners of Jackson County, Kansas, v.

Miller v. AT & T NETWORK SYSTEMS

722 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 21, 1989

Wassenmiller, a board certified internist with a specialty in cardiology was retained by AT & T to give Miller a stress test. Dr. … Jasany v. United States Postal Service, 755 F.2d 1244, 1248-49 (6th Cir.1985); E.E. Black, Ltd. v.

Becker v. Oregon

170 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 26, 2001

As an initial matter, the court notes that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 , 121 S.Ct. 955 , 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), is not controlling here. … Defendants’ citation to Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.1977), and Rizzo v.

Housing4All, LLC v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 1, 2021

See Thomas v. … Housing4All argues that fact finding is unnecessary and that the Court should instead rely on Cintron v. State Board of Education, 384 F. Supp. 674 (D.P.R. 1974) to deny the City’s motion.

Old Town Canoe Co. v. GLENWA, INC.

229 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 4, 2002

Known as a “waveski,” the device is a watercraft that combines elements of a kayak and a surf board. … A waveski appears to be a watercraft that combines elements of a kayak and a surf board.

Willamette Valley Lumber Co. v. United States

252 F. Supp. 199 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 1966

City of Springfield, 192 Or. 676 , 236 P.2d 432 (1951); Grider v. Turnbow, 162 Or. 622 , 94 P.2d 285 (1939). The rule is recognized in timber contracts. Seguin v. Maloney, supra; Paullus v. … Giustina v. United States, 190 F.Supp. 303 (D.Or.1960); Smith v. Martin, 94 Or. 132 , 185 P. 236 (1919).

Washington Public Power Supply System v. Pacific Northwest Power Co.

213 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 19, 1962

B. v. … Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc., 356 U.S. 481, 498-499 , 78 S.Ct. 851 , 2 L.Ed.2d 926 . Counsel for defendant places considerable reliance on Great Northern Railway Co. v.

Reed v. Ezelle Inv. Props. Inc.

353 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2018

Musick v. Burke , 913 F.2d 1390 , 1394 (9th Cir. 1990) ; see also Anderson v. … Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF# 28; Suppl. Higbee Decl. ¶ 8, ECF # 31-1. As in BMG , defendants could have learned about the copyright through basic online research.

Giulio v. BV CENTERCAL, LLC

815 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 2011

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003); see also United States v. … Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 445 (9th Cir.2002). See also, Brunette v.

Eaton

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 2026

(quoting Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 621 (1966)). Adhering to this principle, courts “follow three important rules” in reviewing social security determinations. Brown-Hunter v. … Stiffler v. O’Malley, 102 F.4th 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2024) (first citing Woods v.

Landeros v. Walmart, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 22, 2022

Alaska Rent–A–Car, Inc. v. … In Audas v.

Barnett v. Maxwell

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 19, 2022

See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. … Plaintiff further represents that Defendant has “fail[ed] to keep her address current as is statutorily required by the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles and per the Nurse Practice Acts in Oregon and Connecticut Board

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Inc.

980 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 1997

Bibeau explains that “his skin turns brown it gets itchy.” Bibeau contends that his groin rash is merely “common male jock itch.” … Hartnett v.

Mann v. St. Laurent

229 F. Supp. 2d 1133 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 5, 2002

InPrince v. … In Ainslie v.

Davis v. Davies

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 26, 2024

Thus, “damages claims against . . . individual defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment,” Brown v. Or. … See, e.g., Schneider v. Cal.

Guenther v. Pacific Telecom, Inc.

123 F.R.D. 333 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 2, 1988

In Ross v. … LEXIS 3382 [ 1988 WL 40500 ] (quoting, Koos v.

Buggs v. Crabtree

32 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 11, 1998

See Gillman v. … . § 3585 (b) [ ], an across-the-board prohibition under all circumstances would lead to illogical results.

Smagala v. Sequoia Insurance

969 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 2013

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Seguoia Insurance Company’s Motion (# 12) for Summary Judgment. … Ins. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207 , 1216 (9th Cir.2011). See also Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party must show the absence of a dispute as to a material fact. Rivera v.

Makaneole v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 2022

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which J am required to review the F. & R. … June 5, 2020), where Judge Brown declined to retroactively apply the holding in Maza. Additionally, Chief Judge Hernandez recently adopted Judge Russo’s F. & R. ina different case, Swearingen v.