Case law

Jenkins v. Roberts

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2025

Even if Jenkins had named a proper defendant, however, he does not allege that he has a qualifying disability under the ADA. … Furthermore, it does not appear that Jenkins was “otherwise qualified” to work in TRCI’s kitchen given the eight-hour work requirement.

Crossman v. United States

378 F. Supp. 1312 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 1974

Because Proebstel was not qualified under federal regulations to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), he was flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), 14 C.F.R. 91.105-9. 1 *1315 There was no known radio contact with the … The location and height of the “antenna farm” was clearly marked on the applicable aeronautical section chart. This suffices to refute Plaintiffs’ contention of the controller’s negligence.

Boyce v. St. Vincent DePaul (Lane Co)

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2024

To establish a prima facie claim for FHA disparate-treatment a Plaintiff must allege she: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) applied for, and was qualified to receive, a rental or housing relationship or a term … To establish a prima facie disparate-impact claim under the FHA a plaintiff must establish “at least that the defendant's actions had a discriminatory effect.” Gamble, 104 F.3d at 306 (quotations omitted).

Clement v. Ecolab, Inc.

341 F. Supp. 3d 1205 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2018

"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 resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.... … MacKenzie Engineering Inc. , 324 Ore. 372 , 376, 927 P.2d 86 (1996) (" 'A contract will not be construed to provide immunity from the consequences of a party's own negligence unless that intention is clearly and unequivocally

United States v. Boothroyd

403 F. Supp. 2d 1011 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2005

If petitioner had established his eligibility for the safety valve, petitioner would have been sentenced under the federal guidelines and not subject to any statutory minimum sentence. … improbable” that he possessed a weapon in connection with the offense. ****** In contrast, although the burden of proof for the safety valve under § 5C1.2 also remains on the defendant, to qualify for relief the defendant

Konecny v. Vaafusuaga

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2021

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … “‘The requisite causal connection can be established . . . by setting in motion a series of acts by others 1 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, arguing Plaintiff has not

Clark v. Wolf

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 10, 2021

Wolf and Cuccinelli further assert that even if this Court were to find that they could be held liable under Bivens, the case against them should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments. B.

Alvarez v. University of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2022

established. … Plaintiff did not address Defendants’ arguments concerning the Eleventh Amendment or qualified immunity.

Port of Portland v. the M/V Paralla

703 F. Supp. 1446 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 30, 1988

Connecticut National Bank (hereinafter “CNB”) qualified as such a trustee and in that capacity handled the bonds issued by Automar IV and purchased by Montagu. … The evidence elicited from David Neset and David Cheramy, both representatives of the Port, clearly established that other meetings of this type occurred and that the discounts, like those allowed here, were regularly granted

Walsh v. Enge

154 F. Supp. 3d 1113 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 31, 2015

Ninth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that it is reasonable for city councils immediately to exclude a disruptive individual from a meeting for the duration of that meeting. … According to the Ninth Circuit, “imposing a complete bar on '[the plaintiffs] entry into' the Building, clearly exceeds the bounds of reasonableness clearly established' by White, Kindt, and Norse as a response to a single

Carvajal v. Cal Farms, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 2023

Defendant's position, which is clearly established, remains that defendant did not rehire plaintiff initially in 2019, or again in 2020, because he was ineligible due to job abandonment in 2008, and job abandonment in 2019 … Defendant clearly states this position in its response to interrogatory No. 16.

McClellan v. I-Flow Corp.

710 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 29, 2010

Aug. 15, 2009, p. 435 (“There’s [sic] very few things in medie[ine] where it’s absolutely established that X [causes] Y.”). Moreover, “[l]ack of certainty is not, for a qualified expert, the same thing as guesswork.” … Beck, Swanson, and Matsen — orders that clearly identified the scope of expert discovery in these cases.

Ritter v. Florence City Police Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 6, 2025

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).

United States v. Pitawanakwat

120 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 15, 2000

That crime clearly was not committed as part of any “uprising or other violent political disturbance.” … Clearly not all native people supported the defense of the encampment at Lake Gustafsen.

Fudge v. Towers

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2024

A plaintiff may also qualify for a preliminary injunction by showing that there are serious questions going to the merits of his claim and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor, so long as the other Winter … A request for a mandatory injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored and shall not be granted unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of Southern.

Brabham v. Patenta N.V.

614 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1984

A reading of the statute clearly indicates that § 17(a) was not enacted for the special benefit of a succinct class of individuals but rather represents a “general censure of fraudulent practices____” Bruns v. … In addition to this basic disagreement, two courts had qualified the remedy, Dorfman v. First Boston Corp., 336 F.Supp. 1089 (E.D.Pa.1972), Greater Iowa Corp. v.

Universal Frozen Foods, Co. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.

697 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 20, 1987

Secondary Meaning If a trade dress is determined to be nonfunctional, it must also be inherently distinctive or have acquired secondary meaning to qualify for trademark protection. … This issue is not clearly answered in this Circuit. I am persuaded that under some circumstances the relevant buyer class may be other than the ultimate consumers.

Orbanco, Inc. v. Security Bank of Oregon

371 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 1974

This latter situation constituted a departure from the established policy of separating banking from other commercial enterprises.” - The filing requirements under the Williams Act and FDIC rules and regulations are primarily … The Board is qualified to make the economic decisions demanded by the Bank Holding Company Act.

Conant v. Brown

248 F. Supp. 3d 1014 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2017

states from denying any person the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, from denying any person the equal protection of the laws, and from enforcing any laws abridging the privileges and immunities … "Elector” is defined as "an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution.” O.R.S. 254.005(4).

Meunier v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

51 F. Supp. 3d 1023 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 2014

Under Oregon law, the bar for establishing unconscionability has, historically, been a high one. See Bagley v. Mt. … Plaintiffs allegations in support of his claim for breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing clearly all relate to events that occurred prior to 2000.