Case law

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.

Hussein

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 17, 2026

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 … Although detailed allegations are not required at the pleading stage, Hussein must allege more than the facts alleged here to establish that his disability claim is plausible.

Loftis

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 13, 2025

The standard of review for an order with objections is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A) (applying the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review for non-dispositive motions … “A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the

Whaley v. Campos

District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2022

In particular, the inmate must establish (1) that he actually filed a grievance or grievances that, if pursued through all levels of administrative appeals, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim that he … Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity need not be addressed as Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their personal capacity only. ECF No. 27 at 6.

Dyer

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 2026

While a plaintiff need not be completely destitute to qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. … The mere transmission of the Abuse Prevention Order to Oregon is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction.

Elizabeth Retail Properties LLC v. Keybank National Ass'n

83 F. Supp. 3d 972 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 26, 2015

And with good reason, because these materials are clearly proper subjects of judicial notice given the allegations asserted in Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and the standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) motions. … To overcome the qualified privilege, plaintiff must produce evidence ‘of some kind of improper motive on defendant’s part.’....

Settling States v. Carolina Tobacco Co. (In Re Carolina Tobacco Co.)

360 B.R. 702 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 5, 2007

I cannot say the bankruptcy court clearly erred in classifying the claims as it did. … The bankruptcy court’s acceptance of that opinion is not clearly erroneous.

Repta v. Oregon Arena Corp.

55 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 21, 1999

Plaintiff presented evidence that her employer allowed a white employee a three-week leave of absence for her honeymoon even though she was not qualified for the leave. Id. at 1300-01 . … The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court reasoning that: “While the record clearly supports the jury’s finding that Hilton discriminated against Ngo, it does not support an *1130 award of punitive damages.

Bingham v. Oregon School Activities Ass'n

24 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 22, 1998

A MDT 1 meeting was held and determined Adam does qualify for and will receive special education services during the 1998-1998 school year. … At the hearing, plaintiff established that the requested modification is reasonable in the general sense.

G.R. ex rel. Russell v. Dallas School District No. 2

823 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 4, 2011

The parents established that the District failed to provide Prior Written Notice of the IEP team meeting on October 10, 2008. … The District’s counsel is clearly a person within this provision and is entitled to the disclosure. Subsection (2) also requires the designee to maintain the confidentiality of these materials.

United States v. Herring

35 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 10, 1999

The handgun, which defendant seeks to suppress, was found in the search under the front passenger seat, which is an area clearly within the interior of the passenger compartment of the car 7 . … The *1256 search of the ear, which was conducted within three to five minutes after defendant’s arrest, was sufficiently close in time to defendant’s arrest to qualify as contemporaneous. See United States v.

Denney v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 26, 2023

Plaintiff’s Application Plaintiff alleges disability based on stage 3 kidney disease, COPD – lung scarring, suppressed immune system – auto immune, blood clots/deep vein thrombosis … Throughout plaintiff’s testimony, she clearly remembered and related her symptoms back to when she started certain treatments.

Siring v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education ex rel. Eastern Oregon University

927 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2012

Notwithstanding the University’s attempt to characterize her performance as unsatisfactory, Siring has set forth sufficient evidence to establish that at the time of the adverse employment action in May 2010, she was qualified … In order to prevail on an ADA claim, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she: (1) has or is perceived as having a disability; (2) is a qualified individual; and (3) was unlawfully

Crooker v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2021

After the initial interview process, all fifteen candidates were ranked as equally qualified. Id. at ¶¶ 42, 81-82. … See City of Newport, 453 U.S. at 271 (“[W]e hold that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).

Olsen v. Gonzales

350 B.R. 906 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 2006

Clearly, section 527 implicates the professional’s First Amendment rights not to speak. See Wooley v. … McBride specifically challenges the requirement to clearly and conspicuously use the statement “ We are a debt relief agency.

Pearson v. Reynolds School District 7

998 F. Supp. 2d 1004 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 24, 2014

Pearson complained that Leigh was not communicating clearly with her, and was undermining her authority with the other members of her crew. Dkt. # 44-1, p. 36. … Because the court finds arguments (1) and (2) carry the day, the court does not address the issue of statutory immunity.

Clark v. United States

109 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 23, 1952

Above and beyond this, claimants marshal a series of facts to establish a duty. … If it -be postulated that these obligations were' thus assumed, the nature, character and extent of the obligations must be clearly outlined.

Canell v. Multnomah County

141 F. Supp. 2d 1046 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2001

Moreover, the undisputed facts of record clearly demonstrate that lock-boxes are not permitted at MCDC due to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related solely to safety and security. … Lastly, plaintiff has failed to establish any harm or injury from the transfer he complains of.

Benz v. WEST LINN PAPER COMPANY

803 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 20, 2011

The LCA clearly identifies Benz’s action as walking off the job without authorization, and Benz never challenged any of the statements in the LCA prior to his termination. Oberlin Deck, Ex. 9; Benz Depo., pp. 249-50. … Remaining Arguments The conclusion that Benz’s throat lesions do not qualify as a “disability” for purposes of the relevant version of O.R.S.

Giles v. St. Charles Health System, Inc.

294 F.R.D. 585 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 22, 2013

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). … Because plaintiffs allege the failure to pay regular and overtime wages under Or.Rev.Stat. § 653.261, for which they are seeking penalty wages, Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.150 is clearly applicable to the case at bar.