Case law

Curry v. Hall

839 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 1993

STANDARD OF REVIEW For purposes of a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c): Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be … Further, the Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to those who make false statements, even in the context of petitions to the government. McDonald v.

Oregon Manufacturers and Commerce v. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2022

Therefore, these entities are immune to suit in federal court. … Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139, 144-45 (1993) (citation omitted) (Eleventh Amendment immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability).

Police Automatic Weapons Services, Inc. v. Benson

837 F. Supp. 1070 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1993

When the claim is against the United States, principles of sovereign immunity require that the waiver of liability be strictly limited to the terms of the statute. United States v. … Section 5845(b) of the NFA clearly contemplates that a combination of parts from which a *1075 machine gun can be assembled constitutes a “maehinegun” for purposes of the Act.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2023

“Governmental action is rationally related to a legitimate goal unless the action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” … Plaintiffs dispute this conclusion and assert that their previous COVID-19 infections confer a natural immunity superior to the immunity conferred by the vaccine.

Cederberg v. Legacy Health

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 28, 2020

Accordingly, Defendants have established the “good faith” element for the statutory immunity defense. B. … Because Defendants have established that their evaluation and discharge of Tylka were made in good faith, on probable cause, and without malice, they are statutorily immune from liability.

Barnett v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P.

772 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 2011

Beneficiary’ means the person named or otherwise designated in a trust deed as the person for whose benefit a trust deed is given, or the person’s successor in interest, and who shall not be the trustee unless the beneficiary is qualified … Irreparable Harm The Court concludes Plaintiff also has established he is likely to experience irreparable harm if the scheduled foreclosure proceeds unabated.

Menefee 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.

Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2022

Legal Standards Congress established that when a complaint is filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the … The United States and its agencies have sovereign immunity in federal court unless that immunity is waived. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980).

Schoene v. Rasmussen

District Court, D. Oregon · May 14, 2024

In the alternative, they argue that Defendant Frasier is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 13-14. i. … Defendant Frasier also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. County Def. Mot. 13-14.

Graham v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 4, 2021

“Governmental action is rationally related to a legitimate goal unless the action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” … The Complaint does not allege the necessary facts to establish liability for either Gaston or Donaldson under § 1983.

Moutal v. Exel, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · May 6, 2020

Oregon has a “constitutionally recognized interest in asserting its sovereign immunity.” Id. … For example, Defendant 4 Defendant even notes that Horton established “an as-applied test to the constitutionality of the noneconomic damages cap.” Def. Reply 4.

Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

38 F. Supp. 3d 1207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 14, 2014

To qualify for work-product protection, documents must: (1) be prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial and (2) be prepared by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative .... … Moreover, in camera review of the documents uncovers no suggestion that any of the documents were communicated in connection with any express or clearly implied request for legal advice or with the provision thereof.

Hurst v. First Student, Inc.

181 F. Supp. 3d 827 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2016

First Student reviews the applications and offers qualified applicants an interview. Criddle •Dep. 10:18-22. … These factors clearly apply only to employees, not trainees.”); Helde v.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 19, 2021

However, the state will provide “reasonable accommodations” for “individuals unable to be vaccinated due to disability, qualifying medical condition, or sincerely held religious belief.” … Each Plaintiff has previously contracted and recovered from COVID-19 and each believes that their infection-based immunity is at least as effective as vaccination-based immunity.

Willis v. Nationwide Debt Settlement Group

878 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2012

The Nationwide Service Agreement requires Plaintiffs to establish an SPA with Global. … The unilateral right to select an arbitrator clearly favors Global.

Burns v. LVNV Funding LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 18, 2024

Noerr-Pennington Immunity LVNV argues that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim is barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, but cites no case applying this immunity in FDCPA context. … Noerr- Pennington immunity arose in the antitrust field and the Supreme Court has extended it to other contexts, Sosa, 437 F.3d at 929–31, but LVNV has presented no authority to support applying this immunity to the FDCPA

Boltz

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2026

Patterson is Qualified to Offer Infection Preventionist Testimony PeaceHealth contends that Patterson is not qualified to offer expert testimony because she lacks relevant education, training, and experience. Def. … Plaintiffs contend that if Patterson does not qualify as a scientific or medical expert, she does qualify to offer expert opinion based on her knowledge and experience as an infection control nurse at SLMC during

Kulin v. Deschutes County

872 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 31, 2012

Once the movant has met its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to produce specific evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact or to establish the existence of all facts material to the claim. … It was only after the February 26, 2008, proceedings before the Hearings Officer that the County ultimately conceded that the ADA applied to its zoning decisions and that plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability

Gottfried

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 2, 2026

Palmer for initiating and pursuing a dependency action in court, he is entitled to absolute immunity. See Coverdell v. … Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must clearly identify (1) the parties; (2) the claims; and (3) sufficient facts to support each claim.

Herechberger

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2026

Patterson is Qualified to Offer Infection Preventionist Testimony PeaceHealth contends that Patterson is not qualified to offer expert testimony because she lacks relevant education, training, and experience. Def. … Plaintiffs contend that if Patterson does not qualify as a scientific or medical expert, she does qualify to offer expert opinion based on her knowledge and experience as an infection control nurse at SLMC during