Case law

ANA International, Inc. v. Way

242 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 6, 2002

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. … Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000).

United States v. Clawson

644 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 11, 1986

In Lewis v. … Ellingboe stated that Art and Kitt were staying at the Chumaree, and were driving a brown El Camino and a blue car. Kochever found a brown El Camino in the Chumaree lot.

Jamal v. Wilshire Management Leasing Corp.

320 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 10, 2004

law claim regarding Brown’s December 12, 2000, promotion. … She treated Jamal, Haskin, and Halver-son differently than she did Brown and Hart. (ii) Cynthia Oliver: Brown got a manager job with no foreclosure experience.

The Saigon Maru

267 F. 881 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 1920

Pursuant to the charter party, the steamer came to Portland, and here received on board a full cargo of lumber within her hold, and 241,559 feet, board measure, on her deck, but refused to take any further amount. … Darling & Son v. Raeburn, 10 Aspinall (N. S.) 268, on appeal 429.

Kessler v. Cupp

372 F. Supp. 76 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 5, 1973

Accord, Hoitt v. Vitek, 361 F.Supp. 1238 (D.N.H.1973) ; Ault v. Holmes, 369 F.Supp. 288 (W.D.Ky.1973) ; Heald v. Mullaney (S.D.Me.1973). 2 . … See also, Colligan v. United States, 349 F.Supp. 1233 (E.D.Mich.1972) ; Bowers v. Smith, 353 F.Supp. 1339 (D.Vt.1972) ; and Nieves v. Oswald, 477 F.2d 1109 (2 Cir. 1973). 5 .

VOICE STREAM PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro

301 F. Supp. 2d 1251 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 2, 2004

The city council issued a written decision, adopting in part the board’s written decision and affirming the board’s denial. … As with most such zoning ordinances, the open-ended nature of the ordinance’s conditional-use criteria evinces an intent to grant wide discretion to the zoning board when making conditional-use decisions. Cf. Schad v.

Olson v. Tenney

466 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 9, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (# 34). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. *1233 BACKGROUND I. … Although both works follow the plot of the Book of Esther, Plaintiffs rendition is a short musical that Plaintiff describes as “[f]unny” in her posting on the GodChasers message board.

Burton v. Cascade School District Union High School No. 5

353 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 18, 1973

Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126, 127 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); Cramp v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 , 82 S.Ct. 275 , 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961). … See United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 , 23 L.Ed. 563 (1875).

Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

142 F. Supp. 2d 1293 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2001

DOJ fulfilled this responsibility by adopting guidelines promulgated by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, known as the “Access Board.” … Assuming DOJ’s litigating position in the Lara v.

Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co.

243 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 2, 1965

Parker v. United States, 223 F.Supp. 647 (D.Or.1963); Orlando v. Prudential S. S. Corp., 313 F.2d 822 (2d Cir. 1963). … Atkinson Co. v.

Orbanco, Inc. v. Security Bank of Oregon

371 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 1974

Bank v. Bank of New Orleans, 379 U.S. 411 , 85 S.Ct. 551 , 13 L.Ed.2d 386 (1965), is controlling. … See United States v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 240 F.Supp. 867, 880 (S.D.N.Y.1965).

Gifford Pinchot Alliance v. Butruille

742 F. Supp. 1077 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 16, 1990

For example, on May 11, 1990, the court in Seattle Audubon Society v. … In Pattillo v.

Delorme v. Pierce Freightlines Co.

353 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 18, 1973

On November 9,1971, Delorme requested a hearing from the Workmen’s Compensation Board (Board), contending that the award on November 3 was inadequate. … See Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1971).

SOMMERS EX REL. FLIR SYSTEMS, INC. v. Lewis

641 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 8, 2009

Zetlmaier’s demand on the Board A plaintiff is precluded from alleging that demand is futile if the plaintiff has made a demand on the board. Spiegel v. … See Schnabel v.

Puri v. Khalsa

321 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 26, 2018

Puri v. Khalsa , 844 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2017). In an accompanying unpublished memorandum disposition, the Ninth Circuit dismissed some of Plaintiffs' claims on other grounds. Puri v. … this case may now apply to the facts of this case. *1250 In Kedroff v.

Musser v. Jackson County

District Court, D. Oregon · May 9, 2024

Recently, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals evaluated Jackson County’s process for authorizing a Type 1 use, or an agricultural exemption, under the LDO. Medella Bison Ranch, LLC, v. … Comm'n v.

Anderson v. Central Point School District No. 6

554 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 1982

Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 , 97 S.Ct. 568, 576 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). … Accord, Nicholson v. Board of Education, 682 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir.1982).

Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC.

817 F. Supp. 2d 1251 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 13, 2011

Judge Acosta found Brown v. Boise-Cascade Corp., 150 Or.App. 391 , 946 P.2d 324 (1997), to be on point: In Brown v. … The Brown court cited Moe v. Beck, 100 Or.App. 177 , 785 P.2d 781 (1991), as an example of how OSEA regulations apply to an owner. Brown, 150 Or.App. at 408 , 946 P.2d 324 .

Scott

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 14, 2026

In support, Plaintiff cites to Brown v. Kijakazi, 11 F.4th 1008 (9th Cir. 2021). … In Brown, the court reviewed the ALJ’s partially favorable decision that found the plaintiff disabled as of Aril 25, 2018, but not prior to that date as the plaintiff had argued. Id. at 1009.

Hoffman v. United States

319 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 1970

In Sadler v. United States, supra [ 313 F.2d 106 (10 Cir. 1963)], it was held that a similar provision for concurrency was proper as a recommendation to the Board. We have gone further, however. In Tippitt v. … Mock v. United States Board of Parole, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 248 , 345 F.2d 737 (1965).