Case law

Russell v. Peterson

498 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 23, 1980

United States v. Heard, 18 IBLA 43 (1974); United States v. Taylor, 8 IBLA 364 (1972). … United States v. Whitenack, 1 IBLA 156 (1970).

Schroeder v. Hegstrom

590 F. Supp. 121 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 13, 1984

Both Garrett and Walsh involved across-the-board changes in benefits based on changes in state or federal law. … The court noted: [T]he notices involved an across-the-board reduction in welfare benefit mandated by statutory change.

Too Marker Products, Inc. v. Creation Supply, Inc.

911 F. Supp. 2d 1114 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 28, 2012

BROWN, District Judge. … Plaintiffs rely on Mantia v.

Shaver v. Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Co.

185 F. 316 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 27, 1911

. & P. v. Stepp (C. C.) 151 Fed. 908 ; Gustafson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. (C. C.) 128 Fed. 85 ; Helms v. N. P. Ry. (C. C.) 120 Fed. 389 . … Justice Miller, in Board of Co. Com. v. K. & P. Ry., 4 Dill. 277 , Fed. Cas.

The Canada

7 F. 119 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 28, 1881

Brown and, W. T. Mc-Cabe, bring this suit as stevedores against the ship Canada to recover $1,007.10. … Co. v.

Butler v. Shoemake

173 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 12, 2001

OPINION and ORDER BROWN, District Judge. … In Friedrich v.

The Oriflamme

18 F. Cas. 812 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 30, 1875

It is not satisfactorily shown what number of steerage passengers were on board the Oriflamme on this voyage. The steerage steward says he thinks there was sixty or seventy of them. … Hanson v. Fowle [Case No. 6,042]. The respondent is a corporation, engaged in transporting passengers and freight between this port and San Francisco.

U S West Communications, Inc. v. MFS Intelenet, Inc.

35 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 1998

See Brown v. General Serv. … MFS contends that the Eighth Circuit rejected U S West’s “sham unbundling” theory in Iowa Utilities Board v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir.1997).

Parker v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 2022

Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. … pronounced in Brown-Hunter is unambiguous.

Board of Trustees of the Western States Office and Professional Employees Pension Fund v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 483

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 11, 2020

Employers seek to draw an analogy between this case and Board of Trustees of IBT Local 863 Pension Fund v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 802 F.3d 534 (3d Cir. 2015). … Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009) (quoting Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004)).

United States v. Johnson

63 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 24, 1945

Hughes v. Gault, 1926, 271 U.S. 142 , 46 S.Ct. 459 , 70 L.Ed. 875 , United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan, 1935, 295 U.S. 396 , 55 S.Ct. 781 , 79 L.Ed. 1501 . The second headnote of Tinsley v. … A special committee appointed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California also opposed the Rule.

Oregon Bookmark Corporation v. Schrunk

321 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 19, 1970

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965); Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 , 77 S.Ct. 1325 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (1957). … In Bantam Books, Inc. v.

Bowles v. Hudspeth

62 F. Supp. 803 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 11, 1945

Town Hall Grill, Inc., 1 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 680 ; Bowles v. Sacher et al. 2 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 186, 187 , affirming Brown v. Sacher, D.C., 53 F.Supp. 77 ; Regal Knitwear Co. v. N. L. R. … Hecht Co. v.

Nettleton v. Exact Sciences Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2023

.”); Webb v. … Plaintiff relies on Knepper v. Brown, 50 P.3d 1209 (Or.

Ni-Q, LLC v. Prolacta Bioscience, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 26, 2021

United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956); see also Kaplan v. … Ni-Q also argues that its proposed submarket definition is proper under Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962).

Thompson v. Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District

496 F. Supp. 530 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 1980

Healthy City Board of Ed. v. … Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278-279 , 97 S.Ct. 568, 571-572 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). 4 . See, e. g., Agin v.

Gardner v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 24, 2025

Gardner, 2023 WL 11022871, at *3 (quoting Brown v. Or. Dep’t of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2014)). … Maney v. Brown, 91 F.4th 1296, 1302 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1)).

Paulson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

708 F. Supp. 1163 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 6, 1989

In Cohen v. … In Gugliotta v.

Sanderson v. Maass

687 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 9, 1988

In Rose v. … In Granberry v.

Kemper v. MWH Constructors, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · May 12, 2021

Woodbury v. … Plaintiff has not demonstrated any “convincing evidence” that the Oregon Supreme Court would reject the intermediate appellate court’s decisions in Brown and George.