Case law

Turnidge

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 29, 2026

Almost 20 years later, the Ninth Circuit clarified that “Keenan did not clearly establish that constant illumination violates the Eighth Amendment when done for a legitimate penological purpose.” Chappell v. … In order to prove such a claim, Plaintiff must establish that he: (1) is a disabled person; (2) is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program or activity; and that 5 - ORDER

Allstate Insurance v. Morgan

123 F. Supp. 3d 1266 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 2015

The Larson clause did not clearly establish the parents were in privity with their son and, therefore, issue preclusion did not apply. ' In the present case, the Criminal Acts Exclusion Clause bars coverage for “bodily injury … Allstate also argues that the Joint Obligations, Clause excludes coverage for Debby. and that the conduct allegéd in the Nicholson Complaint does not qualify as an occurrence under the Policy.

Emery

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 20, 2026

To sustain a claim under the ADA and RA, Plaintiff must establish that: (1) he “is an individual with a disability;” (2) he “is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the … Even if employment in the TRCI laundry qualifies as a stand-alone benefit, service, or program, Plaintiff cannot show that he was “otherwise qualified” for a laundry position.

Fenimore

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 25, 2026

The Complaint does not clearly allege the specific contract at issue. … Furthermore, USB is not a non-lender and so would not qualify even under the narrow exception established by Collins. See Nelson, 2023 WL 6122685, at *11 (so holding).

Harper v. Federal Land Bank of Spokane

692 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 27, 1988

In that Title, Congress established broad rights for borrowers and mandatory duties for lenders. … “The test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.”

Esparza v. Bobs

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2025

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff cannot sustain his claims and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … (setting forth procedures of the BOP administrative remedy program); id. § 115.51(a)-(d) (establishing channels to report sexual abuse or harassment of AICs).

Brooks

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 18, 2026

ORS § 30.178 provides a qualified privilege for employers when disclosing information about a former employer's job performance to a prospective new employer. … Under that statute, an employer is “presumed to be acting in good faith and, unless lack of good faith is shown by a preponderance of the evidence, is immune from civil liability for such disclosure or its consequences

Cozine v. Crabtree

15 F. Supp. 2d 997 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 1998

Retroactive designation also is the default method established by BOPPS 5160.03, ¶ 8(b). … Mandamus would not have been available as a remedy for Cozine, given the absence of clearly established law on this topic. Furthermore, his petition likely would have been dismissed as premature.

City of Portland v. Homeaway.com, Inc.

191 F. Supp. 3d 1157 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2016

One who owns or owns and manages a business or other such establishment.”). HomeAway contends these definitions demonstrate ownership is necessary for proprietorship. … HomeAway argues it does not qualify as a Booking Agent, but even if it did qualify, these specific Ordinance provisions cited by the City do not actually impose any requirements or duties on Booking Agents.

Pinnell v. Belleque

638 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 26, 2009

” establishes Cornell alone committed the acts that resulted in Ruffner’s death, and contradicts Petitioner’s suggestion that his proffered “new evidence” establishes Ruffner’s death was an accident: 8. … Stewart, the court found the physical evidence of guilt was not strong and the prosecution relied principally on the testimony of Robert Dunbar given in exchange for immunity. 132 F.3d 463 , 466 (9th Cir.1997).

Clark v. Wolf

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 3, 2022

immunity. … Accordingly, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.

Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2020

Plaintiffs in this case represent certain “food and drink establishments” in Oregon. ECF 1 at ¶ 16. … commerce are clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.”

Martino v. Carey

563 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 1983

If a challenged condition does not deprive inmates of one of the basic Eighth Amendment requirements, it is immune from Eighth Amendment attack. … Clearly Spain v. Procunier, supra, remains the law of this Circuit on this issue.

Warren v. Yamhill County

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2024

Wellpath’s Alleged Policies As a pretrial detainee, Rader had a clearly established, constitutional right to adequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment. … A Policy of Failing to Provide Access to Qualified Health Providers Plaintiff’s third alleged policy of inaction is of failing to provide access to qualified medical and mental health providers, including by failing

Hoffman v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 16, 2019

“‘The 2 Defendants make additional arguments in support of their motion for summary judgment, including Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. … Without further information, this suit does not—on its own—establish the requisite knowledge of a constitutional violation to establish supervisory liability in this case.

Gillis v. Chapman

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2022

Hearsay is admissible only if it qualifies as an exception to the general hearsay rule. … or qualified immunity, but the Court notes that the State Defendants have not asserted either of those defenses in their motion for summary judgment.

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Inc.

980 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 1997

Daniel Diiaconi (Diiaconi) argue that summary judgment should be granted because plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and they are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … Although he did not seek medical attention, clearly he was aware of his recurring testicular pain, and groin rash, as well as his participation in, and details regarding the Experiments.

Tigard Electric, Inc. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n

790 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 19, 1992

These cases focus on the scope of the labor antitrust exemption from the Sherman Act, a question not raised by the present motion. 2 Though the Supreme Court has concluded that the participation of unions would not immunize … It argues that the challenged statements were clearly privileged, and that they accurately characterized or quoted from the complaint.

Iran Thalassemia Society v. Office of Foreign Assets Control

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 14, 2022

A plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction “must establish that the law and facts clearly favor [their] position.” Id. (emphasis in original). … At oral argument, Plaintiffs suggested that their negligence claim might qualify as a claim for violation of safe conduct.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission

855 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 17, 2012

However, any call involving different rate centers, or local calling areas, qualifies as a toll call which generally results in additional charges to the calling party. (Compl. Ex. … Having concluded that the law in existence prior to the issuance of the Mandamus Order clearly establishes that VNXXrouted ISP-bound traffic was not subject to reciprocal compensation under the Act, the court will now address