Case law

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).

Davis v. Crabtree

10 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 1998

Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888 (4th Cir.1994) (using “actual innocence” exception to vacate sentence after parties erroneously stipulated that the defendant qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines). … establishes that the application for certification would be futile.

Alton v. Medtronic, Inc.

970 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 2013

On that construction, the court found- the claim clearly preempted under Section 360k(a) as seeking to “establish design requirements different from, or in addition to, federal requirements for the Infuse Device.” Id. … However, analysis of Alton’s supporting allegations establishes that the claim is pled with adequate particularity.

Malaer v. Kirkpatrick

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 9, 2023

The individual City Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Even if officers mistook Plaintiff's disability symptoms for disorderly conduct, they are 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.

Abney v. Gates

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2022

Supreme Court precedent establishes that a state is immune from suit in federal court unless Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity by appropriate federal legislation or the state itself 1 The court acknowledges the … Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is well established that agencies of the state are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from private damages or suits . . . in federal court.”).

Edwards Vacuum LLC v. Hoffman Instrumentation Supply, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 23, 2021

Disparagement of competitors is only actionable in the Ninth Circuit when the representation is “(1) clearly false, (2) clearly material, (3) clearly likely to induce reasonable reliance, (4) made to … [A] plaintiff may overcome de minimis presumption by cumulative proof that the representations were [1] clearly false, [2] clearly material, [3] clearly likely to induce reasonable reliance,

Strasser v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2021

To qualify for judicial immunity, a judge must have performed “judicial acts” within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). … These allegations involve only Foote and Heywood’s actions associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and do not show that they acted “clearly outside the scope of [their] authority.”

Richardson v. Northwest Christian University

242 F. Supp. 3d 1132 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 16, 2017

For example, if an employer makes clearly racist or sexist statements, those statements are direct evidence of animus. Mayes v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., 846 F.3d 1274, 1280 (9th Cir. 2017). … Plaintiff asserts that she clearly was fired because of her marital status. Defendant presented her with two options that would permit her to keep her job: she could marry her partner or stop living with him.

Thompson

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 27, 2026

Plaintiff argues “PCC waived immunity by accepting federal funds,” denoting “[c]ourts consistently hold that immunity is waived for claims under: Title VI, Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, ADA Title II, … Ultimately, though, plaintiff was unable to complete the Fall 2025 term due to pending criminal charges and, as a result, he was not qualified to receive any additional financial aid or enroll in the Winter 2026 term.

Lunsford

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2026

Roberts moves to dismiss the claims against him based on failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. … Roberts’ qualified immunity argument.

Sanders v. SWS Hilltop, LLC

309 F. Supp. 3d 877 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 16, 2018

This liberal construction is consistent with the FHA's definition of "handicap," which includes individuals not only suffering from a qualifying impairment, but also those "regarded" as having a qualifying impairment. 6 42 … Plaintiffs' housing application clearly represented that Jo Sanders owned a "VA registered service dog" and that it was "trained with documentation." Ellis Decl., Ex. 11 at 4.

John Lee Malaer v. Curry County, et al.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2026

As a result, the Court need not reach the issues of qualified immunity or the Monell claim, both of which are contingent on an underlying violation of Plaintiff’s rights, although the Court notes that at least some of the … individual defendants are likely entitled to qualified immunity, even under the relatively relaxed inquiry in a motion to dismiss established in Keates v.

Rood v. Umatilla County

526 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 20, 2007

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual … To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based upon her disability, plaintiff must show (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) she was subject to verbal or physical harassment because

Kneisler v. Legacy Health

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2024

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to establish either of the first two elements. Mot., ECF 10 at 5–10. … This Court can take judicial notice of the well- known principle that vaccines work by “altering” the immune system by provoking an immune response, which allows the immune system to respond more quickly and effectively

Roloff v. SAP AMERICA, INC.

432 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2006

To establish a pri-ma facie case of discrimination in violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that he or she is disabled, is qualified, and that he or she suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability … Defendant does not seriously argue that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case. Defendant concedes plaintiff was disabled, he was qualified for his position, and he suffered an adverse employment action.

Wilson v. Czerniak

238 F. Supp. 2d 1207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 21, 2002

Therefore, the decision to retry defendant is not “contrary to” clearly established law under either prong, which gives rise to the second issue of whether a retrial would be an “unreasonable application” of clearly established … See Early, 123 S.Ct. at 366 (“decisions which are not ‘contrary to’ clearly established Supreme Court law can be subjected to habeas relief only if they are not merely erroneous, but ‘an unreasonable application’ of clearly

United States v. Dunlap

162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2016

ORS 164.395(1). 5 The Oregon Supreme Court *1114 has established that “[i]t is the additional factor of actual or threatened violence” that separates robbery from theft. State v. … Juvenile struck the victim, she used a degree of force that clearly exceeded the minimal *1118 force contemplated in Flores .

Friedenberg v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 31, 2020

Under § 233(a), a federal Public Health Service (“PHS”) employee qualifies for immunity under the Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”) if a plaintiff alleges a claim “for damage for personal injury, including death, resulting … Because the court did not address § 233(a), it is not relevant to this case and does not help defendants establish a relationship between defendants and plaintiffs here, who received no services of any kind from defendants

Wilcox Development Co. v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A.

605 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 1985

The testimony of the experts clearly established that the prime rates used by banks are set to reflect market demands and individual self interest in attracting new and retaining old customers. Dr. … The testimony made it clear that the plaintiffs did not qualify for alternate rate loans which were designed for and available to low risk borrowers who qualified for very large loans at fixed rates for a fixed short period

Tyler v. Horizon Project Inc.

26 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 30, 1998

The series of transactions in this ease are clearly connected. This warrants application of claim preclusion under Oregon law. … While not shielding employees from liability, the State argues O.R.S. § 30.285 establishes the privity between the State and its employees. I agree.