Case law

United States v. Osborn

409 F. Supp. 406 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 1975

This document clearly falls within the privilege. Item 4: Two Wills As noted above, Osborn possesses no documents pertaining to item 4. … To so hold would extend virtual immunity to every client file maintained in an attorney’s office.

Anderson

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 13, 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

Toth v. Ina Life Insurance Co. of New York

638 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2009

Plaintiff moves for a summary judgment establishing her entitlement to those benefits. … Objectively viewed, the totality of the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff lacks the physical capacity and concentration needed to sustain competitive employment in any field.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Redden

458 F. Supp. 593 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 15, 1978

Each is qualified to do business in Oregon. Defendant Redden (Attorney Gen *595 eral) is the Attorney General of the State of Oregon. … The first two factors mentioned are clearly met in this case.

Puri v. Khalsa

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

Pursuant to his role as Siri Singh Sahib, Yogi Bhajan established numerous non-profit organizations and for-profit businesses. … Defendants argue that information outside the pleadings now shows that membership on the UI and SSSC boards clearly qualifies for the ministerial exception.

Braskett v. Fender

884 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 2012

Braskett clearly stated that while Mr. Braskett had become increasingly verbally abusive towards her, he had never been physically violent towards her or the children. 15 Mrs. … In addition, the defendants claim that even if Braskett could show his constitutional rights were violated, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment because qualified immunity shields them from liability.

Hoyt Street Properties, L.L.C. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Santa Fe Railway Co.

38 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 1999

A primary source of the contamination on the Property is diesel or fuel oil, which clearly qualifies as a commodity and was productively used by Defendant in its railyard operations. … Additionally, the lead is a substance out of which something can be fashioned, which qualifies it as a material under Defendant’s definition.

Aasum v. Good Samaritan Hospital

395 F. Supp. 363 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 1975

The court found this discrimination unconstitutional because there was no rational relationship between the rule itself and the hospital’s purpose to select qualified staff members. … jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be conmmenced by any person: ... (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity

MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 5, 2024

Defendant determined that Plaintiff did not qualify for a religious exception and denied her request. Id. ¶ 24. … This Court concluded that those individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim. See ECF 35 at 18–24.

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall Reservation v. Shalala

58 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 22, 1999

Indeed, Landgraf clearly articulated a strong presumption against implied retroactivity. … Thus, in most cases, those where Congress had waived sovereign immunity from suit, the resulting judgments .could not be paid unless the Congress specifically appropriated funds for that purpose. 69 Comp.

Wiederhold v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

888 F. Supp. 2d 1065 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 23, 2012

In the present case, without such a discussion, the court cannot identify clearly which factual assertions Wiederhold deems relevant and material, and which she deems immaterial. … Thus, Sears asserts Wiederhold must be able to establish “constructive discharge” in order to prevail on this claim.

Adams v. JC Penney Co., Inc.

865 F. Supp. 1454 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 6, 1994

Both Branch and Genter clearly require that a plaintiff prove that he or she did or did not take action resulting in forfeiture of the very benefit sought. … Her action all occurred after her accident and after she was informed that she may not qualify for coverage.

Gund v. Marion County

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 9, 2025

Likely because the Supreme Court has already established that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity with respect to Title II of the ADA “as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right … To establish an ADA or RA violation, a plaintiff must (1) be a qualified individual with a disability, (2) who was denied a reasonable accommodation that is needed for her “to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of

Agristor Credit Corp. v. Schmidlin

601 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 23, 1985

Smith moves for summary judgment on all claims against it on the grounds of corporate immunity. … The defect alleged here, however, clearly involves a danger to property other than the product itself.

Davis v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

45 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 2014

legislature intended that the benefits of a veteran’s preference be given at only one stage and that an employer could choose which stage to give the preference, the legislature could have, and likely would have, said so more clearly … Rather, TriMet argues that other candidates were more qualified. The evidence does not show that other candidates were more qualified as a matter of law.

Harris v. Merz

District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 2025

I am [federally] qualified as disabled b/c of Saif Jnma [sic]. Khalifa Mohammed Alfuqaei UAE resident who knew in 2019 what happen[ed] didn’t CARE! … Plaintiff should clearly and briefly explain what has happened, how she has been injured, and why she believes the named defendants should be held liable for the injury.

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc.

999 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 1997

Further, Quiekturn argues that the loss of these sales to Mentor will have repercussions throughout Quiekturn, causing it to lose qualified, trained sale representatives because of decreasing commissions, limiting its ability … [I]t is clearly established that Smith knew of the Hughes patents when it designed the F series bits and took a calculated risk that it might infringe those patents.

Townsend v. Jones

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 2024

He recommended denying Defendants’ request for summary judgment as to the June 2018 and March 2018 attacks on the basis of qualified immunity. Id. at 8. … Plaintiff points to the stipulated facts of his housing history and testimony about the risks Plaintiff faced on the general population housing units to argue the evidence is sufficient to establish that all Defendants

Colquitt v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.

144 F. Supp. 3d 1219 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 9, 2015

Ramirez , therefore, does not establish Plaintiffs claims in this case constitute continuing violations. … To state a claim for violation of the ECOA Plaintiff must allege she “(1) is a member of a protected class; (2) applied for credit; (3) was qualified for credit; and (4) was denied credit, despite being qualified.”

Gunter

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2026

witness has to be sufficiently qualified to render the opinion[.]” … Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right under the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefor is not subject to immunity.” Am. Compl at 2.