Case law

Jeffords

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 5, 2026

On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief and argued that she need not establish that she was a qualified individual to prevail on her ADA retaliation claim, taking a position contrary to her position at the … Now that the jury has found that Plaintiff was not a qualified individual, Plaintiff takes the clearly inconsistent position that she need not show that she was a qualified individual to prevail on her ADA retaliation claim

Campbell v. KNIFE RIVER CORP.-NORTHWEST

783 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 8, 2011

Defendant does not challenge that plaintiff belongs to a protected class and was qualified for his position. … Facts regarding the agent’s duties are clearly relevant to the analysis. See, e.g., Sana v.

Century Indemnity Co. v. Marine Group, LLC

848 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 2012

TPPs point out that the 104(e) letters clearly threaten substantial fines, and the Batson letters clearly threaten enforcement for failure to participate. … Paul argues, it cannot be required to defend what would qualify as a “claim” under its policy, regardless of whether it would qualify as a “suit” under the OECAA.

Barnhart v. Fastax Inc.

127 F. Supp. 3d 1098 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2015

Plaintiff contends that under contract law, K1 established a compensation agreement on August 30, 2012. This Court looks to principles of contract. … Instead, K2 clearly outlined a compensation system that recognized differing levels of PEP completion.

Womack v. Consolidated Timber Co.

43 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 1, 1941

Clearly, on the other hand, the last ruling is a permissible one under the language of the statute. … Defendant, Consolidated Timber Company, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws ■ of the State of Michigan, qualified to do business in the State of Oregon.

Middleton v. Reyes

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 2025

Secondarily, defendants argue that they are each entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Because the record does not show that defendants deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right, the Court does not reach the remainder of the qualified immunity analysis. See Orn v.

Barton v. City of Portland

242 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2002

In addition, defendants Katz and Kroeker argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The mitigation hearing clearly satisfied all of these requirements. The record reveals that Barton had ample notice of the charges against him.

Rogers v. Hexol, Inc.

218 F. Supp. 453 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 2, 1962

The complaint states clearly that there was an interference with the property of the plaintiff. … Associated Retail Credit Men, 70 U.S.App.D.C. 183 , 105 F.2d 62 , 64: ‘We cannot evade this duty; for unless we establish a right in the plaintiff we establish a privilege or immunity in the defendant.’

Bobosky v. Adidas AG

843 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 29, 2011

Rather, only use of a mark to identify the goods as coming from a certain source and distinguish it from other sources qualifies as trademark use. … It is well-established that even use of a mark as ornamentation on apparel manufactured by others qualifies as trademark use as long as the mark also serves the trademark purpose of identifying the source of the product.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. United States Forest Service

546 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 3, 2008

These are clearly different uses in potential frequency, scope, and impact. … Sirrah clearly has no express easement recorded in the chain of title to the Becker property.

Sites Freightlines, Inc. v. United States

158 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 24, 1958

They contend that applicant does not qualify as a common carrier by motor vehicle under the act and hence, that it may not be granted a certificate. … “provides that an applicant must establish that it is fit, willing and able to perform the proposed service.” . See Herrin Transportation Co. v.

Allision v. Dolich

148 F. Supp. 3d 1142 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 2015

Hearsay is admissible only if it qualifies as an exception to the general hearsay rule. … Even if, Josephson did not adequately identify the payroll registers as admissible business records, this flaw may clearly be cured at trial. See Fraser v.

Mendoza v. Bell

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 2021

Defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion. … “[F]or a person acting under color of state law to be liable under section 1 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, arguing Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants Turner

Apeldyn Corp. v. Eidos, LLC

943 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 8, 2013

It does not appear from the text and context of the Preservation Clause that every right under the Patent Agreement necessarily would qualify as an accrued right. … Because the Gross Revenues clause is silent as to the effect of expiration or termination, and the Patent Agreement clearly establishes that expiration and termination are contemplated outcomes, the Gross Revenues clause

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.

265 F. Supp. 3d 1196 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 5, 2017

The Supreme Court found that the Reviser’s Note did not clearly express any substantive change to § 1400(b), therefore none would be presumed and § 1391(c)’s amendment to purportedly apply to “all cases” did not include patent … June 27, 2017) (“TC Heartland does not qualify as an intervening change in law.”); Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 6:15-CV-00551-RC, 2017 WL 3404795 , at *2 (E.D. Tex.

Sullivan v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 30, 2020

at 380 (noting that a videotape clearly contradicted the story told by the opposing party). … Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994) (the FTCA waives the United States’ immunity as to certain torts under a state’s common law but does not waive immunity as to constitutional torts claims); United States v.

Hotchkins v. Fleet Delivery Service

25 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 14, 1998

The Garrett court held that a plaintiff “may establish [a] prima facie case [of race discrimination] by demonstrating: (1) that she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was discharged from a job for which she was qualified … In his Complaint, Hotchkins clearly spells out two claims for relief: violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Complaint, pp. 1, 3.

Alvarez v. University of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 2020

Defendants further argue that plaintiff’s claims are similarly barred by qualified immunity because plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to show that his rights were violated. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

Miller v. City of Eugene

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2023

McIntyre is entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s first claim; (3) Det. … And in moving for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s first claim based on the doctrine of qualified immunity, Defendants directly raised the same factual issue and addressed it, explaining in their motion—supported by a sworn

Clark v. Phelps

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2023

As demonstrated above, the Amended Complaint clearly alleges that in issuing the Certificates of Compliance, Phelps and Curtis acted within the scope of their employment of Defendant Canopy dba MCM. … Even if those documents do not establish LSF9’s authority to enforce the loan, and there is no indication in any document this Court has reviewed remotely challenges that chain of title, the documents establish LSF9 and