Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,488 results
0.95s
239 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 1965
Thus, in involuntary bankruptcies the range of compensable services was fairly clearly indicated, and was apparently narrower than in voluntary bankruptcies. … The crucial qualifying phrase in § 64 is “costs and expenses of administration”.
Cited 9 timesPublishedVaughn v. Klamath County Fire District No.1
District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 19, 2024
Qualified immunity for Engler and Dustin : Defendants Engler and Dustin also raise a defense of qualified immunity. . … □ A plaintiff attempting to overcome the presumption of qualified immunity must first the constitutional right was clearly established. Gasho v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2025
immunity. … qualified immunity is determining “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged”).
Cited 0 timesUnknown8 F.2d 871 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 5, 1925
On April 11, 1923, article III was amended to read: “It shall be unlawful for any person hereafter to maintain or to establish on any vacant lot in any residential district in the city any fuel yard, lumber yard or second-hand … There is no moral test prescribed, nor any rule of action or standard fixed by which the applicant may be controlled or governed, in order to qualify him as a suitable person to be allowed the permit.
Cited 1 timesPublished620 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 2009
Liability of Sheriff Crabtree Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to the claims against Sheriff Jack Crabtree on the basis of qualified immunity. … This assertion does not establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 266 (9th Cir.1995).
Cited 1 timesPublishedRice v. United Parcel Service General Services Co.
43 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 19, 1999
The UPS defendants contend that UPSGSC qualifies as both an employer and part of the “group” of UPS, Inc. UPS, Inc. is a family of corporations. … In those cases, both employers receive the benefit of workers’ compensation immunity for employers.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2020
Alternatively, Paulson argues he is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. DISCUSSION I. … Qualified Immunity Because I find Paulson did not provide deliberately indifferent medical care, I do not consider the issue of qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownOregon Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate, Inc.
157 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 9, 2001
The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is “fairly high,” Brand v. … For the relief plaintiffs are seeking, this court clearly has personal jurisdiction over defendant.
Cited 2 timesPublishedLocal 2195, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. International Paper Co.
488 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 1980
Such warning slips shall clearly state the basis for the warning and provide therein a space where the employee must sign acknowl *879 edging receipt of the warning slip, although the person does not necessarily accept that … An employee is qualified for holiday pay if the employee meets all the following conditions: (a) The person’s last hiring date was at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the paid holiday, and (b) the person worked the
Cited 3 timesPublishedS v. v. Sherwood School District
75 F. Supp. 2d 1153 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 1999
In amending the EHA to its present form, Congress rejected its earlier policy of “merely establishing] an unenforceable goal requiring all children to be in school.” … The Bradley court held that Arkansas waived its immunity through participation in the IDEA, a spending program. 189 F.3d at 753.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2023
In August 2020, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing, as relevant here, that qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims and discretionary immunity bars Plaintiffs’ negligence claims … Following oral argument (ECF No. 147), the Court denied Defendants’ motion with respect to qualified immunity, but granted the motion in part with respect to discretionary immunity and entered partial summary judgment
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · May 19, 2026
Additionally, a court must dismiss a complaint on immunity grounds once it has “sufficient information to make a determination” that defendants are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Chavez v. … A court may issue an ex parte TRO without notice to the adverse party only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly shows that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
Cited 0 timesUnknown119 F. Supp. 3d 1284 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 5, 2015
Three of petitioner’s five qualifying Washington state convictions were for Second Degree Burglary. … Under these principles the Johnson rule is clearly substantive and retroactive application is not an issue.
Cited 1 timesPublishedO'Neill v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 29, 2024
“When the plaintiff asserts multiple claims, it must establish that venue is proper as to each claim.” Kaia Foods, Inc. v. Bellafiore, 70 F. Supp.3d 1178, 1183 (N.D. … Jan. 23, 2012) (“Neither the United States, federal agencies, nor federal officers sued in their official capacity qualify as ‘citizens of different states.’”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownFriends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Elicker
598 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 10, 2009
State Defendants, in turn, contend they have immunity as state officials under the Eleventh Amendment. … Thus, some federal cooperation clearly has already occurred during the development of the Reintroduction Plan and additional cooperation appears imminent if the plan is implemented.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAtrio Health Plans, Inc. v. Performance Health Technology, Ltd.
District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 13, 2019
In order to arise under federal law, “[a] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” … While ultimately unsuccessful in removal, PH TECH was not “clearly foreclosed” from removing this action based on relevant case law.
Cited 0 timesUnknown659 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 4, 1987
As such, Fisher is entitled to the benefit of the limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States provided under the Administrative Procedure Act. 1 5 U.S.C. § 702 . … The Secretary asserts that the duties of the Secretary regarding approval of the private placement option are clearly discretionary and that Fisher has no role in choosing such assignment.
Cited 4 timesPublishedWESTERN RADIO SERVICES CO. v. Qwest Corp.
734 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2010
The PUC also contended that Western’s 42 U.S.C § 1983 causes of action were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and by absolute and qualified immunity. … Title 47 U.S.C. § 251 (c)(2) clearly gives Western the right to deliver all its traffic to any technically feasible point in Qwest’s network.
Cited 1 timesPublishedPearson v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
834 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2004
Based on these opinions, Defendants informed Plaintiff that he did not qualify for total disability benefits under the policy and that his disability benefits would cease effective April 28, 2001. … In light of the clear legislative statement that only the Director shall regulate improper insurance practices and the fact that fraud in the inducement would clearly qualify as an improper practice, coupled with the absence
Cited 5 timesPublishedCrowd Management Services, Inc. v. United States
889 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 1995
While plaintiffs evidence establishes that, after 1982, CMS supervisors no longer *1317 exercised their right to control the details of the security workers’ assignments, it fails to establish that the supervisors no longer … Defendant contends that plaintiff's failure to move for summary judgment on this issue constitutes a concession that plaintiff is not qualified for relief under Section 530. That is clearly not the case, however. 3 .
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna