Case law

Larson v. Carpenter

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 8, 2022

First Amendment Retaliation To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity … Because the complaint does not plausibly allege a First Amendment Claim, the Court need not address defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. B.

Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc.

938 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 2, 2013

Phelps’ doctors are qualified to render opinions on causation in this case. Thus the issue is whether the experts in this case have testified that causation was probable or merely possible. … Clearly Dr. Lockfeld had not only diagnosed her with tardive dyskinesia, but believed that her tardive dyskinesia was caused by metoclopramide. Additionally, Dr. Peterson testified she diagnosed Mrs.

Phoenix Electric Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n

867 F. Supp. 925 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 9, 1994

They also assert that, if Section 2 requires that a single defendant possess the requisite market power, ONECA qualifies as the monopolist. These arguments fail for two reasons. … Plaintiffs contend that the OJTP was not established through collective bargaining.

Northwest Success, Inc. v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 2026

“It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972); see also U.S. CONST. amend. … As discussed above, the use of the qualifying words “immediate” and “prompt” sufficiently cabins the establishment of the time limitations to avoid arbitrary enforcement.

United States v. Carlson

946 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2013

Carlson’s knowledge of the Johnny Cash photographs was derived from confidential marital communications and that this distinction was not clearly made in the affidavits. … Mosteller, Admissibility of Fruits of Breached Evidentiary Privileges: The Importance of Adversarial Fairness, Party Culpability, and Fear of Immunity, 81 Wash.

Oregon Aero Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2025

"Oregon law establishes that 'a presumption will be indulged against an intention to contract for immunity from the consequence of one's own negligence.'" Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. … That presumption cannot be overcome unless the intention to contract for tort immunity "'is clearly and unequivocally expressed.'" Id. at 66 (quoting Estey v.

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

Allen v. Thompson

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 18, 2024

Neither of these assertions change the undisputed fact that the grievance appeal response forms clearly and unequivocally informed plaintiff that he was required to correct and resubmit the grievance appeal with the proper … Alternatively, Stewart asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. Mot. Summ. J. 10, 12, ECF 43; Reply 5, ECF 59.

Davis v. Con-Way Freight Inc.

139 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 4, 2015

“To prevail on an ADA- 4 claim of unlawful ■ discharge, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the statute; (2) he is a qualified individual with … A claim brought on that basis is clearly preempted by ERISA.

Wahab v. Wahab

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 2, 2024

Forms of Privilege Oregon courts have recognized that “[a] statement that is otherwise defamatory is privileged if it is uttered under such circumstances that the law grants immunity … See Garson, 532 N.Y.S.2d at 780 (stating that “it has been observed that the individual asserting the defense of qualified privilege must establish that the allegedly defamatory statement was made upon an occasion furnishing

Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 27, 2025

Judge Beckerman also recommended denying the motion to make more definite and certain, finding that nothing in the complaint is so indefinite as to make the nature of the claims unclear and that plaintiffs clearly intended … The County next argues that the F&R wrongly concludes that plaintiffs established but-for causation, again arguing that the F&R wrongfully conflates mental health emergencies and physical health emergencies and fails to

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Swift Transportation Co.

45 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 14, 1999

favor of the plaintiff on her race discrimination claim and awarded compensatory damages; the district court declined to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury and the Ninth Circuit affirmed: “While the record clearly … Plaintiff filed an action alleging that the employer deliberately set the qualifications for the set-up position in such a manner that it effectively eliminated all women from the pool of qualified applicants.

Scott v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2025

An exception to “this broad waiver of sovereign immunity [is] called the discretionary function exception[.]” Id. … United States, 973 F.2d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 1992)). /// The Supreme Court has established a two-step analysis for determining the applicability of

Daniels v. Taylor

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2021

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.

Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Seafoods Co.

341 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2004

City of West Sacramento, 905 F.Supp. 792, 806-07 (E.D.Cal.1995) (holding that Section 1319 clearly bars only civil penalty actions, not claims for injunctive and declaratory relief). … Defendant Hyundai America argued that the DEQ’s issuance of a NON was an administrative penalty enforcement action that qualified as a comparable state law action under the CWA. Id. at 1181 .

Warren v. Yamhill County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 3, 2024

On June 16, 2021, Rader was seen for several minutes by County employee Defendant Qualified Mental Health Professional (QMHP) Toni Sanzano. … Application Rader had a clearly established, constitutional right to adequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sandoval v.

Menefee v. Washington County Sheriffs Office

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 10, 2021

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. … A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact and proximate (i.e., legal) causation. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).

Villanueva v. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC

319 F.R.D. 307 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2017

As to Plaintiffs counsel, Defendants raise no argument that they are not qualified or experienced. … This is clearly a classwide merits argument which is inappropriate to consider at this juncture, .

Williamson v. Western-Pacific Dredging Corp.

304 F. Supp. 509 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1969

For that matter, the doctrine of absolute liability for maintenance and cure may already be established. Calmar S.S. Corp. v. … Texaco, Inc., 383 U.S. 262 , 86 S.Ct. 765 , 15 L.Ed.2d 740 (1966), point in plaintiff’s direction, each is clearly distinguishable from the facts before me.

Delyria v. Shalala

856 F. Supp. 1432 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 1994

Specifically, it fails to clearly indicate that if no request for reconsideration is made, the determination is final. … Taylor after September 30, 1990 which clearly state that claimant cannot lift more than 10 pounds.