Case law

Edwards v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2024

Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (establishing the 30-day deadline for removal from the initial pleading); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (establishing that if a case as stated in the four corners of the initial pleading is … Instead, Defendants removed based on their belief that diversity jurisdiction existed, despite their awareness that the complaint on its face did not clearly establish that fact.

Fierling

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2026

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v. … Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 11 (2002) (explaining that state court decisions may be set aside only “if they are not merely erroneous, but an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or are based on an unreasonable

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

817 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 19, 2011

NMFS also established several terms and conditions required under the ITS, as well as reasonable and prudent measures. BiOp at 32-34. … The guidelines establish dual regulatory presumptions.

Case v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 2025

a violation of the Sixth Amendment, failure to establish a violation of the First Amendment, and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff did not establish a continuing or consistent pattern of opening legal mail: one of the envelopes that was opened was clearly marked “legal mail” and included attorney information, the second envelope was not marked

Ros v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2022

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 … and particularly relevant to this case, 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

Teicher v. REGENCE HEALTH AND LIFE INS. CO.

562 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 20, 2008

On October 31, 2007, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the ground that the record establishes he is totally disabled, and, therefore, he is entitled to benefits under the LTD Policy. … Waller reported he did not “feel qualified ... to make a diagnosis of impaired cognition, pending a more formal *1131 neuropsychologic evaluation.” Accordingly, Dr.

Bass

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 16, 2026

It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish both these and the third step. Id. … Qualified Immunity Because plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were not violated, the individual defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Hamilton

434 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 9, 2006

Hamilton argues, both methods qualify as searches under the Fourth Amendment and are “presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Id. … Because the magistrate’s determination that probable cause existed was not clearly erroneous, this court refuses to reverse that determination.

Rankin v. Landers

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 21, 2021

Hayes, 849 F.3d at 1211; see also Marquez, 12 F.3d 1107 (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a qualified immunity defense where the plaintiff alleged prison officials searched his cell and “carefully read the contents … He does not however establish that the documents were properly marked as “confidential legal mail” or were marked as correspondence with an attorney. Hayes, 849 F.3d at1212; Mangiaracina, 849 F.3d at 1198.

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

Giftango, LLC v. Rosenberg

925 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 15, 2013

Rosenberg clearly had a plan. … Second, intangible injuries such as loss of goodwill and prospective customers can qualify as irreparable harm. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D.

Rucker

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 27, 2026

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). 1 - ORDER “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that … 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 S.

Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative v. Brown

822 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 1, 1993

Chehalis Indian Reservation, 928 F.2d at 1499-1500 (“[t]ribes are sovereign entities immune from nonconsensual actions in state or federal court.”); and Makah Indian Tribe, 910 F.2d at 557 (waiver of sovereign immunity must … McNeil is a well qualified fisheries scientist retained by plaintiffs to review defendants' recommendations for 1992 FCRPS operations.

Securian Life Insurance Company v. McAlister

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 21, 2025

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … [t]he LSA clearly require[d] the decedent to name E.K. as the sole beneficiary on that policy.” Id.

Dundon v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2024

Such a conclusory allegation devoid of factual support is insufficient to establish that Plaintiff suffered a harmful or offensive contact. … This contact is clearly harmful and offensive to Plaintiff, and he alleges that the officers intended to bring about harmful or offensive conduct.

Institute for Wildlife Protection v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

290 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 8, 2003

Because I find that plaintiff qualifies for a fee waiver under the public interest exception, I find no need to consider plaintiffs other proposed exceptions. … Finally, plaintiffs intent to disseminate the resulting work to an audience was expressed clearly and repeatedly.

Villanueva v. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC

215 F. Supp. 3d 1045 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2016

They contend that a connection through an affiliated company alone does not establish that two companies are affiliates under § 1301(1)(b). … In their motion, the Javlin Parties clearly limit their “affiliate” argument to Count One and clearly limit their Rule 9(b) argument to Count Two. Javlin Mot. 3, 6.

Snow v. Women's HealthCare Associates, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 2, 2024

Establishing its reliability would require expert testimony, which Plaintiff does not present. … This statement is not “clearly . . . discriminatory” but rather requires an “inference or presumption” of animus. Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2005).

Nguyen v. Columbia River People's Utility District

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 10, 2023

Section 1983 prohibits the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States by any person “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage … Plaintiff argues that a disclosure under O.R.S. 659A.203 need not involve a violation of law and instead that a report of wrongdoing to supervisors or HR can qualify as a protected disclosure.

Siegel v. Eugene Water & Electric Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 30, 2024

Even assuming the ADA Plaintiffs could establish that they each have a qualified disability, the Court is not prepared to issue preliminary injunctive relief based on mere speculation. … Finding no reason to break from clearly established precedent, the Court will not judicially create a new privacy interest.