Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,488 results
1.20s
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
Cited 0 timesUnknownColquitt 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.”
Cited 12 timesPublishedPulido v. United Parcel Service General Services Co.
31 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 8, 1998
MeCloskey’s statement was not ambivalent; it was a clearly written declaration. This case does not involve parties who agree when the injury took place or that the injury was immediately apparent. See Crego v. … In those cases, both employers receive the benefit of workers’ compensation immunity.
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022
immunity. … Therefore, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022
immunity. … Therefore, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022
immunity. … Therefore, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLee James Barley, II v. ArcBest II, Inc., dba U-PACK; Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2026
Defendants assert that this is insufficient to establish that Marksthaler had the education, training, experience, and expertise to qualify as an expert in the strap or trailer door. … The court intervenes only when it can say that the actor’s conduct clearly meets the standard or clearly falls below it.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Feb 20, 2020
In a habeas case concerning non-homicide offenses, the Ninth Circuit held that a state court decision was contrary to clearly established federal law because there is no material difference, for Eighth Amendment purposes … Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity are affirmative defenses. Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010). They must be pled in the Answer or they are waived. Id.; see also Fordyce v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022
immunity. … Therefore, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSpada Properties, Inc. v. Unified Grocers, Inc.
38 F. Supp. 3d 1223 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2014
Unified is a secured seller of non-PACA qualified food and also supplies groceries to Food 4 Less. … USC responds that the written agreement between USC and Food 4 Less stated clearly that payment was due within ten days of delivery.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022
immunity. … Therefore, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022
immunity. … Therefore, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnknown874 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2012
Nike responds that Lyons’s own testimony does not qualify as expert testimony because he was neither named nor qualified as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 *994 and this court’s order calling for … Here, in contrast to Enzo, the court finds that Nike has not met its burden to establish, clearly and convincingly, that the '448 Patent is invalid as obvious. 5 Although Lyons may not have made the evidentiary showing necessary
Cited 2 timesPublishedBonnichsen v. United States, Department of the Army
969 F. Supp. 628 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 27, 1997
The Supreme Court concluded that this was not enough to establish standing. … "Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 1209 .
Cited 13 timesPublishedMenefee v. Washington County Circuit Court
District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 2020
Should plaintiff file an Amended Complaint 3 - ORDER TO DISMISS curing the substantive deficiencies noted below, the Court advises plaintiff to clearly identify all intended … Absolute prosecutorial immunity is not defeated by a showing of malicious or wrongful conduct. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431.
Cited 0 timesUnknown991 F. Supp. 1232 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 1998
If at any time in the future you think you qualify for payment, please contact us immediately about filing a new application. We cannot make payment for any month before the month in which you apply. … Brown has the burden of providing the evidence needed to establish her entitlement to reopen. See Panages v. Bowen, 871 F.2d 91, 93 (9th Cir.1989), citing Kail v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHernandez v. Oregon House of Representatives
District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 20, 2021
It is well established that federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities. Bogan v. Scott- Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 46 (1998); Tenney v. … “An absolute immunity defeats a suit [for damages] at the outset, so long as the official’s actions were within the scope of the immunity.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 419 n.13 (1976).
Cited 0 timesUnknownMaier v. Pacific Heritage Homes, Inc.
72 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 18, 1999
The offer of employment, printed on Pacific Heritage Homes letterhead, clearly states that Maier will be an employee of Pacific Heritage Homes. … It states that Maier “will qualify for an annual bonus of 30% to 50% of [his] base salary.” Id. The phrase “will qualify” is mandatory, not discretionary.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2024
A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v. … In sum, PCR court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when denying Petitioner’s claims, and he is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna