Case law

Cascadia Wildlands v. Scott Timber Co.

190 F. Supp. 3d 1024 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 19, 2016

Both parties’ occupancy conclusions rest on plausible scientific backed by qualified experts. Because serious questions exist as to the merits of this case, this first factor favors a preliminary injunction. *1035 B. … Here plaintiffs assert the “unauthorized taking of marbled murrelets ... is clearly irreparable.” Pis.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 19.

O.M. v. National Women's Soccer League, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2021

To obtain a mandatory injunction, a plaintiff must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. (emphasis in original). … Plaintiff is injured by being excluded from the market, competition in the market is injured by the exclusion of otherwise qualified players, and the NWSL and its members have pooled their market power to “in effect, establish

Pascoe v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

199 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 11, 2001

Pas-coe believes he was more qualified for the TME positions than either M’Kalech or Mayer. 4. … Realty Corp., 285 F.2d 487, 491 (2nd Cir.1960) (“While the FLSA does not expressly set forth a requirement of prompt payment, such a requirement is clearly established by the authorities .... ”).

Goss v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 28, 2024

Against that backdrop, even though plaintiff clearly interprets the evidence differently, she has not (and cannot) establish error by simply advancing a different interpretation of the medical evidence. … “An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id.

Andrade-Tafolla v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2022

The work-product doctrine “is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.” Admiral Ins. … “The burden of establishing application of the deliberative process privilege is on the party asserting it.” Thomas v. Cate, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1019 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

Rossa

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 2026

O’Connor, 846 F.2d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming denial of qualified immunity in § 1983 case where patient at the State hospital was killed by another patient when a question of fact existed as to whether defendants … But as discussed above, Plaintiff fails to identify any unconstitutional policy or decision that clearly establishes the fault and causation behind the incident between Philbee and Bergeron. C.

Sanderson v. Maass

687 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 9, 1988

McCoy recited the above assets and stated that if the information was true, Sanderson did not qualify for appointed counsel. The court asked Sanderson, “Do you want to be heard on that matter?” … Sanderson also established that he advised the court that he did not have enough experience to proceed without an attorney. The record does not establish that he waived his right to counsel “with eyes open.”

Strong

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 14, 2026

To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate that the litigant is unable to pay court fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617. … A Court must also assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Reiger v. St. Charles Health System, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 13, 2025

She argues that the legislature’s use of the word “qualifies” “confirms that it intended a patient’s entitlement to 100% bill forgiveness be established by a hospital’s screening.” Id. at 12. … Charles understood Plaintiff did not “qualify” and transferred the debt on that basis. Why then Ray Klein would or should have known that Plaintiff qualified and was immune from interest is unclear.

DeCicco v. Uniroyal, Inc.

293 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 24, 1968

Clearly, he would not take a chance on a 25% increase in purchases if he believed that he was then purchasing a defective product. … The record clearly shows that the plaintiff’s operations were unprofitable during the years 1958, 59, 60, 61 and following years.

Diamond v. City of Sandy

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 10, 2025

Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 616-617 (2015), which states that “[e]ven if an officer acts contrary to her training . . . that does not itself negate qualified immunity where it would otherwise be warranted” and thus, “a plaintiff … The Court notes that this passage discusses the weight of an expert opinion in a qualified immunity analysis, not the admissibility of that evidence in the first place.

Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon

717 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 4, 2010

J.V.H. and Jane is clearly not a fit matter for judicial notice. … J.V.H., it would clearly have constituted actionable negligence had the archdioeesan defendants permitted Fr.

Williams v. Federal Express Corp.

211 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2002

Under that test, an employee may establish a prima facie case of race discrimination if he submits evidence, that (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3) he was subjected to an adverse … In sum, plaintiff has clearly made a sufficient showing to establish a prima facie case.

Toliver v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 24, 2022

In any event, to the extent it is construed as a sub-division of the Oregon Department of Corrections, agencies of the state are protected from suit under sovereign immunity. … Here, plaintiff does not establish facts sufficient to establish the deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Accordingly, plaintiff must file an Amended Complaint. III.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. DeGroot

339 B.R. 201 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2006

Under this program, private lenders lend money to students seeking degrees at qualifying institutions, without regard to their creditworthiness. … But, Congress has clearly expressed its intent that student loans generally not be discharged in bankruptcy, and whereas Ms.

Grayson v. Le Caillec

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 16, 2024

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that” the action is: (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Article 3 is intended to establish clear, practical rules for negotiable instruments. State es rel. Bus. Dev. Dep’t v. Huttenbauer, 301 Or. App. 340, 341 & n.1 (2019).

Pound v. Benton County Health Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 19, 2025

Plaintiff requested a medical exemption, citing his natural immunity. Id. Defendant denied that request and removed Plaintiff from the recall list. Id. … Disparate Treatment Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment by showing that “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for

United States v. Dean

169 F. Supp. 3d 1097 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 15, 2016

The district court held that the § 2255 petitioner “can clearly establish prejudice in this case.... if the Court had applied the correct guideline range (without the career offender enhancement), then it would have sentenced … [petitioner] to a lower sentence, establishing prejudice.” 12 Id. at *7.

Mead v. Turnage

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 20, 2020

immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants move for summary judgment on the additional basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claims.

United States Nat. Bank of Portland v. United States

188 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 1960

In said return the executor did not include any part of the value of the said inter vivos trust established by decedent and claimed a deduction of $12,000 for the said widow’s allowance paid to the said surviving spouse. … The opinion clearly indicates that if said income was sufficient for the support of the widow, then a widow’s allowance from the husband’s estate would be improper.