Case law

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.

League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Forsgren

163 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 7, 2001

Plaintiffs argue that the administrative record clearly establishes that B.t.k. is a pesticide that is harmful to all butterflies and other Lepidoptera; that exposure to B.t.k. will kill most species of moths and butterflies … Defendants argue that rather than downplaying any negative information on potential human health effects, as plaintiffs contend, a review of the EIS establishes that it clearly evaluates and discloses it.

Walker Macy LLC v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

243 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2017

“When interpreting a statute, the court begins with the statutory text and interprets statutory terms in accordance with their ordinary meaning, unless the statute clearly expresses an intention to the contrary.” … Labor unions .were concerned about the H-l classification not having any requirement for determining the availability of qualified U.S. workers.

David Hill Development, LLC v. City of Forest Grove

688 F. Supp. 2d 1193 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 2010

Furthermore, under Oregon law, a government action must be intentional in order to qualify as a taking without just compensation. … “In this circuit it is clearly established that a plaintiff may pursue an equal protection claim by raising a ‘triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ asserted [rational basis] ... was merely a pretext’ for differential

Frosty v. Textron, Inc.

891 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 22, 1995

Moreover, under Daubert, even the subjective opinion of a qualified engineer should be rejected if the opinion is wholly untested. See Stanczyk v. Black & Decker, 836 F.Supp. 565, 567 (N.D.Ill.1993). … Plaintiff is the duly appointed personal representative of the estate which has been established in Linn County, Oregon.

Juliana v. United States

339 F. Supp. 3d 1062 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 15, 2018

On July 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied federal defendants' second mandamus petition, holding that federal defendants had not met the standard to qualify for mandamus relief. … The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

City of Portland v. Boeing Co.

179 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2001

schemes set forth in O.R.S. 448.265 or O.R.S. 468B.020, it is clear from Judge Stewart that it may pursue a common law public nuisance claim based on activity declared by the state legislature to be sufficiently hazardous to qualify … The definitions of the terms are not mutually exclusive and clearly contain some ov *1199 erlap.

Monro v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 4, 2024

immunity. … Second, even if Monro provided timely and fair notice of his new theory, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. In Mora-Contreras v. Peters, 851 F.

Acrymed, Inc. v. Convatec

317 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 14, 2004

To establish a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the subject of the claim qualifies as a statutory trade secret; (2) the plaintiff employed reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of its trade … Plaintiffs’ quantum meruit claim is clearly based on the same set of operative facts as Plaintiffs’ claim under the Act and is preempted by the Act.

Oravetz v. Oravetz

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 15, 2024

Second, it must 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 to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( … Plaintiff should briefly and clearly explain who the defendants are, what they have done, and why Plaintiff believes the defendants should be held liable for his injury.

Bliss v. Adewusi

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 27, 2024

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … County Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Dossett v. Ho-Chunk, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2020

Dossett alleges that statements in the articles referencing NCAI’s investigation of Dossett’s conduct do not clearly include the result of the investigations: • “The terrible secret was apparently exacerbated by … Rather, the statement is clearly one person’s subjective impression of Dossett, not an objective fact. See Lieberman v.

Fleck

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2026

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM It is well established that the “same substantive rules apply to Rule 12(b)(6) and [Section] 1915(e) dismissals for failure to state a claim.” … But even if Fleck had clearly alleged that Del-One furnished the same report on behalf of both Del-One and “Delaware Federal Credit Union,” the tradeline Fleck challenges clearly reflected the same $31,550 unpaid auto loan

Lane v. Brown

166 F. Supp. 3d 1180 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 2016

On August 6, 2012, the court certified a class of “all individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Oregon who are in, or have been referred to, sheltered workshops,” and who are “qualified for supported … The Agreement avoids any such risk and immunizes the class certification order from attack by defendants. On balance, this factor favors approval.

Alberto-Toledo v. Pulver

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 15, 2021

Apr. 11, 2014) (“In order for the County to hold a person beyond the period necessary to execute an order of legal authority to continue detention, it must meet the clearly defined reasonable seizure standards of the Fourth … Neither party presented evidence establishing the basis for the current ICE hold against plaintiff.

Marshall v. Farmer

District Court, D. Oregon · May 27, 2020

entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Should plaintiff file an Amended Complaint curing the substantive deficiencies noted below, the Court advises plaintiff to clearly identify all intended defendants in the caption thereof. II.

United States v. Oregon

122 F.R.D. 571 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 7, 1988

The original Plan had a term of five years and set conservation goals for each- fish species, established fishing regulations and provided for the establishment of future management techniques. … Clearly, this action cannot become a forum for west coast ocean fishing, let alone the entire Pacific Rim past which these marvelous fish migrate.

Oravetz v. Probate Washington State

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 19, 2024

Second, it must 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 to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( … Plaintiff should briefly and clearly explain who the defendants are, what they have done, and why Plaintiff believes the defendants should be held liable for his injury.

Peterson v. Snodgrass

683 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 5, 2010

In particular, “when the employer may qualify for an exemption under the state law but not the federal law ... the employer is required to comply with the federal law.” Id. … This is clearly outside the statutory window for the payment of wages, entitling Peterson to summary judgment as to liability for a penalty under ORS 652.140.

Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Communications Workers

199 F. Supp. 689 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 1961

Both parties concede that the suspension of Johnson was a “grievance” which qualified for processing under the rules of procedure outlined in Article 6. … management and that it is the duty of the Court to direct arbitration on unresolved issues between those parties, where there is a broad arbitration clause,, and unless the particular issue has been specifically excluded or is clearly