Case law

Bradshaw v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2024

The listing gives several examples of immune deficiency disorders that would qualify under either category. Id. Plaintiff points to no “immune deficiency disorder” that he had. … Thus, Plaintiff failed to establish that he had an immune deficiency disorder as defined by Listing 14.00(E), so he did not trigger the ALJ’s duty to review whether his limitations met or equaled Listing 14.07.

Fritz v. Norblad

566 F. Supp. 1459 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 1983

A cause of action under § 1983 extends to deprivations of such privileges and immunities as are secured by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hague v. … The law establishes a property interest in public employment if it restricts the grounds on which an employee may be discharged — for example, if discharge can only be for “just cause.”

Sharr v. Department of Transportation

247 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 3, 2003

At the assessment center, applicants proceeded through a pre-established series of tests. … TSA, not NCS Pearson, established the qualification standards for the hiring of airport screeners. Maier Deck, ¶ 14.

Hulse v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB

195 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 27, 2002

A statement that is otherwise defamatory “is privileged if it is uttered under such circumstances that the law grants immunity to the speaker.” Wattenburg v. … Gas Co., 613 So.2d 646, 658 (La.Ct.App.1993) (qualified privilege applies to false light invasion of privacy claim).

Monical v. Nofziger

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2021

immunity from damages. … Thus, the court need not address defendants’ qualified immunity defense. See Monro v. Kelly, No. 6:17-CV-01650-SB, 2019 WL 7197605, at *5 (D. Or.

Galaxy Gaming of Oregon, LLC v. Burdick

556 F. Supp. 2d 1180 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 13, 2008

The Tribal Gaming Commission considering the licensing application then makes an independent determination whether the vendor qualifies to do business with the tribe. … Where the regulations establishing entitlement to the benefit are mandatory in nature, and not discretionary, applicants have a property interest protectible under the Due Process Clause.

Maney v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 5, 2024

“But that general rule does not apply when the summary judgment motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity, because pretrial orders denying qualified immunity generally fall within the collateral order doctrine.” … Schoen is clearly an expert in ventilation and HVAC.

Walker v. Portland Public School No. 1J

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 27, 2023

are not entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v.

Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines v. United States

225 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 1963

, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; or (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory … On this question, the Commission decided that commodities which were ordinarily used as “building materials” or “construction materials” (i. e. commodities on the so called “building material list” established by the Commission

Port of Portland v. Water Quality Insurance Syndicate

549 F. Supp. 233 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 7, 1982

There is no material issue of fact as to whether the sinking of the OREGON was sudden or accidental; the policy clearly covers such a loss. … Further, Oregon cases hold that such dredging is not a “governmental” function sheltering municipalities from liability by their sovereign immunity, McKay v.

United States v. Harkins

355 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 30, 2004

A person may establish a corporation sole which the person controls. … This is clearly false and fraudulent. Next, an organization is tax exempt if it serves a “public rather than a private interest.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.501 (c)(3) — l(d)(ii).

GALAXY GAMING OF OREGON, LLC v. Burdick

556 F. Supp. 2d 1180 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 13, 2008

The Tribal Gaming Commission considering the licensing application then makes an independent determination whether the vendor qualifies to do business with the tribe. … Where the regulations establishing entitlement to the benefit are mandatory in nature, and not discretionary, applicants have a property interest protectible under the Due Process Clause.

Daul v. PPM Energy, Inc.

267 F.R.D. 641 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 15, 2010

To qualify for relief under this provision, a party must “establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal.” Martella v. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are entitled to a reconsideration of the Opinion.

Ryder v. City of Springfield

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 22, 2025

In addition, states are generally immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity unless Congress has abrogated their immunity, or the state has waived immunity by consenting to suit in express … To recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish intentional discrimination on the part of the state officials. Ferguson v.

Brown v. United States

292 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 1968

The ease is clearly distinguishable; here we are dealing with an irrevocable rather than a revocable escrow agreement. … There were 2,451 abstentions, 2,431 of which were not qualified to vote.

Woodbury v. United States

192 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 1961

In construing the Tort Claims Act the courts have uniformly held that immunity was not waived as to all torts. Immunity was not waived for conduct amounting to a nuisance. Dalehite v. United States, supra. … Clearly, this language must be read and construed with the other language of the Act.

Brooks v. Clyne

District Court, D. Oregon · May 30, 2022

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to address two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established

Kay v. North Lincoln Hospital District

555 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1982

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (Discharge of police chief by city manager, held municipality not immune from suit under § 1983 although respondeat superior problem not discussed … In both, cases the employees apparently relied upon oral assurances in the face of regulations which established that they served “at will.”

Bjork v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 2020

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. … Moreover, this right is at least arguably “clearly established” after Brown, which may defeat defendant’s qualified immunity. See Brown, 751 F.3d at 989 (quoting Harlow v.

Harbert v. Patton

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Patton would be entitled to qualified immunity. IV.