Case law

Dvorak v. Clean Water Services

432 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2006

ADA Claim — Disability To prevail on a disability discrimination claim under the ADA, plaintiff must initially establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability. Humphrey v. Memorial Hosps. … As noted earlier, plaintiff must first establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability to prevail on an unlawful discharge claim under the ADA. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1133 .

Thompson v. The Nith

36 F. 86 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 1888

The admission as to their condition is qualified by this circumstance, and, if the fact was otherwise, the carrier may show it. … The admission establishes the fact, prima facie, that the anvils were' in good order when shipped, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to show the contrary.

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.

In Re Valdez

250 B.R. 386 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 15, 1999

STANDARD The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Bankr.P. § 8013. Issues of law are reviewed de novo. U.S. v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1403 (9th Cir.1985). … What is required is that a substantial portion of the debt be disputed for it to fail to qualify to be subject to a dispute for purposes of section 303(h).

Matthews v. Ulrich

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 28, 2020

Additionally, the Amended Complaint is dismissed as to ODOC on the basis of sovereign immunity. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. … Where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction which goes beyond maintaining the status quo, he must demonstrate that the facts and law clearly favor an injunction. Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740; see also Am.

Jeremiah v. Jantzen

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 2, 2023

Supreme Court precedent establishes that a state is immune from suit in federal court unless Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity by appropriate federal legislation or the state itself has waived it. Va. … “Retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of this right is itself a constitutional violation, and prohibited as a matter of ‘clearly established law.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Newcomb v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 25, 2025

from suit in federal court pursuant to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Furthermore, Plaintiff has not clearly alleged any basis for applying any of the exceptions to Younger abstention.

Burwell v. Portland School District No. 1J

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2020

American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, see ECF 22 at 16– Plaintiffs argue that the F&R erred in finding that the Complaint alleges government speech that is immune from challenge under the … the extent that Plaintiffs argue that Defendants did not fund the speech of private speakers but instead selectively provided opportunities for speech by certain speakers,7 this Court recognizes that when the government establishes

Leight v. Union Security Insurance Co.

189 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2016

The Policy The LTD Policy provides for a disability income benefit for eligible employees if the qualifying period is satisfied and the person is under the regular care and attendance of a doctor. LTD Policy 20. … The “Total Disability Test” is defined as follows: • during the first 36 months of a period of disability (including the qualifying period) an injury, sickness or pregnancy prevents you from performing with reasonable. continuity

Wetmore v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2021

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s claim of a conspiracy between Defendant, the Secret Service, and Twitter to “take away” his First Amendment right to freedom of expression is “clearly … The First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” U.S. Const. amend. 1.

Lafferty v. Providence Health Plans

706 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 12, 2010

A through examination of the record establishes that the BBBD treatment meets the criteria for medically necessary services under the Policy as it has clearly significant health benefits, is of demonstrable value that exceeds … The court has the discretion to allow additional evidence not before the Plan Administrator, but should exercise this discretion “only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. United States

841 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 21, 1994

Appointments Clause Defendants argue the Appointments Clause does not apply to § 2719(b)(1)(A) because the Governor does not qualify as a federal appointee under the Buckley test. … Section 2719(a) clearly sets forth a general federal policy of prohibiting fee-to-trust conversions of off-reservation land for the purpose of establishing gaming operations for the benefit of Indian tribes.

Wilson v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.

186 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2001

The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is “fairly high,” Brand v. … These claims clearly implicate the seminal case of *1145 Brandenburg v.

Blackthorne v. Posner

883 F. Supp. 1443 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 1995

Pos-ner is immune from an action for intentional interference of Plaintiffs contractual relationship with Computerland. … Posner's representations for the jury. 19 .Though Plaintiff clearly knew by February 1992 that he would not receive the higher TAE in January 1992, he did not necessarily know or should have known, in light of Mr.

Flores v. ODOC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 21, 2024

“To prevail on a Section 504 claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) [the plaintiff] is an individual with a disability; (2) [the plaintiff] is otherwise qualified to receive a certain benefit; (3) [the plaintiff] was … STATE TORT CLAIMS Defendants argue that they are immune from Flores’ state law tort claims in federal court. (Defs.’ Mot. at 9.)

Anderson v. Hibu, Inc.

26 F. Supp. 3d 1019 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 12, 2014

You will be considered, along with other external applicants, for any open positions that you are qualified for at the time of your application. … Fourth, as to plaintiff’s termination, this act clearly constitutes an adverse employment action.

Rolex Employees Retirement Trust v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

749 F. Supp. 1042 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 1990

Clearly, any claim which sounds in negligence under Oregon law will have as two of its elements “duty” and “breach of that duty.” … Rolex has alleged no such conduct on the part of Mentor Graphics and has failed to establish the sort of direct nexus between the parties necessary to establish a duty under the traditional test.

Hollinquest v. Payne

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 19, 2021

Put simply, Plaintiff argues he has established a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his Eighth Amendment claims, precluding summary judgment. … Plaintiff also argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. The Court disagrees, and adopts this portion of the F&R, ECF 60 at 15–24, in full. C.

Humphers v. McElroy

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2019

Similarly, here, the effects of the pepper spray may qualify as a “serious medical need.” See Clement, 298 F.3d at 904. … Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 2 Defendants make additional arguments in support of their motion for summary judgment, including Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity.

Murphy v. Precision Castparts Corp.

District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2021

Plaintiffs to establish falsity. … In other words, Coffman’s opinion established loss causation with respect to Lead Plaintiffs’ primary theory of liability on the FY16 target statements, but did not establish loss causation for the other challenged statements