Case law

United States Ex Rel. Sutton v. Reynolds

564 F. Supp. 2d 1183 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2007

The Ninth Circuit has fashioned a four-part test to establish a claim under either section of the Act. … Clearly, the amount of rent Defendant intended to collect from Plaintiff was relevant to HAP’s decision to enter into the Contract with Defendant.

Frank v. Kotek

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 17, 2025

Further, even if the claims were not time-barred, because the Attorney Defendant was not acting as an agent of the State and the State Defendants are subject to prosecutorial, sovereign, and qualified immunity, Plaintiff … Specifically, Defendant Blixseth asserts prosecutorial immunity, while Defendants Hammond and Burreson claim qualified immunity. Id.

Maurer v. Harris

502 F. Supp. 320 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 21, 1980

The Eighth Circuit has clearly indicated that when a Social Security claimant has met his burden of proof with evidence indicating that he is unable to return to his prior employment, said burden transfers to the Secretary … Weinberger, 512 F.2d 664 (4th Cir. 1975)] is the recognition that the ALJ is not qualified to provide affirmative vocational evidence.

Lee v. Walters

172 F.R.D. 421 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 10, 1997

“The burden of establishing substantial justification is on the party being sanctioned.” Telluride Mgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Telluride Inv. Group, 55 F.3d 463 , 466 (9th Cir.1995). … In contrast to the sovereign immunity of the federal government, the immunity of a state derives solely from the Eleventh Amendment.

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.

Gardner v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 24, 2025

The State Defendants further argue that “[Gardner’s] amendment would still be futile because defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment.” (Id. at 10, citing Johnson v. Am. … Dec. 19, 2024) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s claims are futile on the ground that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]he [defendant]’s arguments are more appropriate in

Smith v. City of Dalles

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants briefly argue that Officer Nagamatsu is entitled to qualified immunity for making the purported arrest when he placed Plaintiff in handcuffs, even … Further, the purported arrest violated clearly established constitutional law.

Sarantex Shipping Company v. Wilbur-Ellis Company

391 F. Supp. 884 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 18, 1975

In that case, defendant herein sought to establish the liability of the vessel and its owner for cargo loss and damage. … Clearly this case does not involve a simple sale of cargo. The cargo was not paid for by W-E: rather, it was accepted essentially on a consignment basis.

Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc.

970 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 2013

It wrote: “While Buchanan clearly has no formalized education or training in HR practices, I find him qualified to testify about standard HR practices in large organizations on the basis of his experience performing discrimination … The Court agrees with Arnold that Pfizer has failed to establish, as a matter of law, that she was not qualified to perform the essential functions of her job.

Hanson v. State of Oregon, Legislative Assembly

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 2024

Legal Framework To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under ORS § 659A.112(1), the plaintiff must show: “(1) she is a qualified individual with a disability … To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is a qualified individual; (2) the defendant received adequate notice of the paperwork: because Ye and Rep.

West

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2026

Plaintiff does allege that he “is a qualified individual with documented disabilities, including Schizophrenia (MH3 code), PTSD, and Opioid Use Disorder (OUD).” Compl. at 3. A. … A Monell claim is a species of § 1983 claim, and, as such, States, their agencies, and their officers acting in an official capacity are immune from suit.

United States v. Ernst

857 F. Supp. 2d 1098 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2012

Defendant’s third argument that he is shielded from federal prosecution by foreign state immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1602 is unfounded. … Although there is a qualified right to select one’s attorney, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an indigent criminal defendant the right to appointed counsel of their choice. United States v.

Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.

994 F. Supp. 1242 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 19, 1998

Eliminating the curriculum or age-eligibility requirements for high school athletes clearly changes the fundamental nature of such competition. … Under the category of Blind Golfers, the pamphlet provides: Definition of “Coach” The status of the coach and the duties which he may perform should be defined clearly.

Giulio v. BV CENTERCAL, LLC

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

The testimony establishes that Dye asked Captain King to arrest everyone involved in the incident, not just the Giulios. … The email clearly establishes that Dye wanted all involved to be prosecuted so that he could do some “damage control” and assure the general public that physical altercations at Bridgeport Village would not be tolerated or

Wright v. Oregon Metallurgical Corp.

222 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2002

conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims [the prudence requirement]; (C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly … Plaintiffs, in fact, establish the contrary.

Veaux v. Southern Oregon Sales, Inc.

33 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 13, 1940

The statute according to its language sets two years prior to the application upon which the patent is based as the limit of immunity, 35 U.S.C.A. § 31 . … If strict anticipation is not existent, the prior art clearly suggests to the skilled mechanic everything Schmithals taught.

Kirk v. United States

383 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2019

"A party may bring an action against the United States only to the extent that the government waives its sovereign immunity." Valdez v. United States , 56 F.3d 1177 , 1179 (9th Cir. 1995). … The court found that the priest's "alleged sexual assaults on plaintiff clearly were outside the scope of his employment" under the traditional test, but held that the "inquiry does not end there."

Romero-Omana v. Dickison

District Court, D. Oregon · May 5, 2021

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact and proximate (i.e., legal) causation. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). … To qualify for judicial immunity, a 4 - ORDER TO DISMISS judge must have performed “judicial acts” within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Stump v.

Gibson v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2024

The Court acknowledged “this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty,” but found “the alternative of qualifying … You found Schmidt's decision “not to pursue a class of cases is clearly ‘connected with the prosecutor's role in judicial proceedings’ and is therefore subject to absolute immunity.”

Lane v. Kitzhaber

283 F.R.D. 587 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2012

The CDDPs establish and confirm the rates for individuals’ service needs. Id. … Some of the named plaintiffs are clearly capable of working in an integrated setting based on their past work experience in community jobs (Ms. Cason, Ms. Kehler, Ms. Robertson, and Ms. Harrah).