Case law

Allstate Insurance v. Simms

597 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 13, 1984

This court reviewed an identical exclusion clause in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Browning, 598 F.Supp. 421 (D.Or.1983) (Frye, J.). … United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, 39 Or.App. 873 , 593 P.2d 1278 (1979); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Browning, supra, at 424. Allstate contends no such prejudice will occur.

Jackson v. New York Life Insurance

299 F. 679 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 28, 1924

forwarded in due time to the home office of the company in New York, and on May 28, 1919, the policy was issued and mailed to the Portland office of the company, with instructions to hold it until released by the medical board … But later the Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of New York Life Insurance Co. v.

Myers v. Peterson

744 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 4, 1989

Petitioner cites Wilson v. … In Giarratano v.

Seehausen v. Van Buren

243 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2002

Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir.1983). … Brown, 895 F.2d at 535 . Nigro does not dictate a contrary result.

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Management

143 F. Supp. 3d 1064 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2015

The Steens Mountain Advisory Council, which is an advisory board to the BLM on managing the CMPA, unanimously recommended the project. … TRW Inc. v.

Wilson v. Czerniak

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

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). … However, the Brown Court stated in a footnote that “We are not concerned here with the double jeopardy questions that may arise when a defendant is retried on the same charge after a mistrial .... ” Brown, 432 U.S. at 165

K.F v. Baker School District 5J

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 8, 2021

See Brown v. State Dep’t of Corr., 173 F.R.D. 262, 264 (D. Or. 1997) (holding that Oregon public records law “is not a statute that creates an evidentiary privilege exempting these documents from discovery. … United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981).

Petersen v. Cazemier

164 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 23, 2001

Brown told Cazemier to send a copy of the report and a letter from McDonald describing the events to him (Brown) so that he could examine them to determine if probable cause existed to seek criminal sanctions. … See, e.g., Duran v.

The Ullock

19 F. 207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 1884

Com. v. Ricketson, 5 Metc. 412 ; 2 Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 109. … The ruling in Hepburn v. Ellzey, supra, was afterwards applied in New Orleans v.

Teicher v. REGENCE HEALTH AND LIFE INS. CO.

562 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 20, 2008

In McFarland v. … In Saffle v.

WCI Cable, Inc. v. Alaska RR Corp.

285 B.R. 476 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 22, 2002

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of Eleventh Amendment Immunity Issue (# 37). … Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675 , 119 S.Ct. 2219 , 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999).

Thommen v. Consolidated Freightways

234 F. Supp. 472 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 1964

They rely on Kipbea Baking Co. v. … The case was dismissed on the ground that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter (secondary boycott and other unfair labor practices).

Motameni v. Adams

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 10, 2022

Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the board, the plaintiff must plead facts supporting an inference that a demand would have been futile. Towers v. … See Lawton v.

Bennett v. Bennett

3 F. Cas. 212 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 26, 1867

Mar. & Div. § 728; Barber v. Barber, 21 How. [62 U. S.] 582. In the case of Barber v. Barber, supra, the parties while domiciled in the state of New York were divorced simply from bed and board. … Craig v. Brown, [Case No. 3,328;] Mewster v. Spalding, [Id. 9,513;] Tooker v. Thompson, [Id. 14,097.] But it seems very questionable if this interpretation of the act is the correct one.

Balfour v. Wilkins

2 F. Cas. 539 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 1879

Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. [38 U. S.] 77; Naylor v. Ballzell, [Case No. 10,061;] Story, Confl. Laws, § 280. … Raymond v. Tyson, [17 How. (58 U. S.) 59.]

United States v. Fuentes

800 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 2011

Washington, 490 F.3d at 776 (applying Brown v. Illinois 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) to determine whether consent to search was tainted by Fourth Amendment violation). … Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 . Suppression is justified only when the discovery of evidence results from illegal government action. United States v. Pulliam, 405 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir.2005).

Carr v. City of Hillsboro

497 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 9, 2007

Bd of County Comm’rs of Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997). … See Hiber v.

United States v. Lewis

36 F. 449 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 10, 1888

S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32 ; U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336 . … S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 630 ; U. S. v. Bevans , Id. 386 ; U. S. v. Kessler, 1 Baldw. 28 ; U. S. v. Wilson, 3 Blatchf. 438 . But as yet it has not done so. The celebrated case of Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Exch.

In re Bryant

4 F. Cas. 514 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 1865

of fifty tons or upwards, bound from a port in one state to a port in any other than an adjoining state, shall, before he proceed on such voyage, make an agreement in writing or in print, with every seaman or mariner, on board … The Panama [Case No. 10,702], I am aware that in Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch [6 U. S.] 445, Ch. J.

Grumbling v. Medallion Insurance Company

392 F. Supp. 717 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 1975

The parties agree that the governing Oregon law stems from Radcliffe v. Franklin National Insurance Company, 208 Or. 1 , 298 P.2d 1002 (1956) and Groce v. … This letter was transmitted by Adjuster Brown to defendant’s Portland office on June 28, 1973.