Case law

Martyr v. Mazur-Hart

789 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 13, 1992

“Second, if a constitutionally protected interest is established, a balancing test is to be employed to determine what process is due.” Id. … Lord, 952 F.2d 679, 684 (2d Cir.1992) (“a liberty interest of inmates to correspond with non-inmates was not clearly established in [Martinez ]”) (emphasis in original).

Lee v. Oregon

869 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 1994

A plaintiff invoking federal court jurisdiction must establish, at an irreducible constitutional minimum that: (1) they have suffered an “injury in fact” or an invasion of *1494 a legally-protected interest which is concrete … Section 4 of the Measure provides, in relevant part: (4) No health care provider shall be under any duty, whether by contract, by statute or by any other legal requirement to participate in the provision to a qualified patient

Toohey v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. Health & Welfare Plan

727 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 26, 2010

ERISA requires that every employee subject to a qualifying plan receive an SPD. 29 USC § 1022 (a). … Thus, in order to be awarded BTA benefits, plaintiffs must establish that the airplane was “leased” by WWC.

Sandoval v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 20, 2023

Petitioner asserts that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings as to Clayburn’s testimony are contrary to clearly established federal law. … Where precedent establishes that there is no clearly established federal law on point as to Petitioner’s due process claim, he is not entitled to relief. IV.

Burgess v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2023

A position that was not contrary to clearly established law is thus substantially justified.” Meza-Vazquesz v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2021) (simplified). … Plaintiff argues that Buck established that vocational rebuttal evidence must be addressed when it is from the same source that the VE used and shows a “vast discrepancy” in the numbers, and that Shaibi established that

Harding v. US Figure Skating Ass'n

851 F. Supp. 1476 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 3, 1994

The hearing date established by defendant was not "reasonably convenient for all parties," as required by defendant's bylaws. … Defendant has an interest in enforcing its rules and promptly disciplining violators, and ensuring that only qualified skaters represent the United States at the World Championships.

Morlan v. Qwest Dex, Inc.

332 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 2004

While plaintiff does not clearly set forth the statements upon which she relies, her briefing mentions the following statements and inferences: • Dodson told his boss at CMO, Mr. … More often, a defendant will argue that otherwise actionable statements qualify for a conditional (or, stated differently, qualified) privilege.

Kerr Center Parents Ass'n Ex Rel. Richardson v. Charles

572 F. Supp. 448 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 1983

The pur *453 pose of the agreement is to qualify the State for receipt of federal funds for special education pursuant to EAHCA. … Until the Oregon legislature provides such funds, or until it enacts legislation clearly placing the financing burdens upon the local school districts or upon the Lake Oswego School District, or until it resolves in some

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

861 F. Supp. 1498 · 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.

DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 2025

In enacting the FRSA, Congress did not clearly express an intent to preclude ADA claims. … There is clearly no ‘intolerable conflict’ between the two statutes.”).

Wells v. Oregon Ry. & N. Co.

15 F. 561 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 19, 1883

An allegation will not be expunged from a bill as impertinent unless its impertinence clearly appears; for if it is erroneously struck out the error is irremedial. Story, Eq. Pr. § 267. … In answer-to the applications for the injunctions the defendants filed the affidavits of their respective managers; but neither of these contradict or qualify the facts here stated, except in one particular.

Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Management Ltd.

80 F. Supp. 3d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2015

B. 12(b)(6) Motion Regarding the Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim To establish a claim under Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.460, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the subject of the claim qualifies as … Identification of a Trade Secret Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to clearly identify any specific information it shared with Defendants that qualifies for trade secret protection.

De Jaray v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 2022

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 556 (2014) (describing immunity from antitrust liability); see also Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg.

PacifiCorp v. North Pacific Canners & Packers, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 3, 2023

Priority under § 507 “is to be strictly construed” because “preferential treatment of a class of creditors is in order only when clearly authorized by Congress.” … creditors is in order only when clearly authorized by Congress.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush

451 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 7, 2006

Prior to determining whether the state secrets privilege requires dismissal of plaintiffs case, I first determine whether this information qualifies as a secret. Hepting, 439 F.Supp.2d at 986 ; El-Masri v. … Plaintiffs also argue that if the court rules that they may have access to the Sealed Document, such a decision is subject to judicial immunity.

Justice v. Rockwell Collins, Inc.

117 F. Supp. 3d 1119 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

First, plaintiff cannot establish the third element. … Aug. 20, 2014) (dismissing the plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C, § 1981 claim where they were “clearly not parties to any contract [with the defendant] based on the allegations in the second amended complaint”).

Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc.

730 F. Supp. 1525 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 15, 1990

Each of these statutes qualifies as a racketeering activity under both RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1), and ORICO, O.R.S. 166.715(6). … In this case, TFC does not clearly allege that Richmark was enabled to commit the predicate offenses solely by virtue of its position in Ever Bright or its involvement in or control over the affairs of Ever Bright.

Reyes v. Washburn

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2025

With respect to his specific claims, Defendants move to dismiss Reyes’ disability discrimination claims on the grounds that he fails adequately to plead facts to establish that he has a qualifying disability and that Defendants … ’ argument that Reyes failed to allege a qualifying disability.

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Caswell, Jr.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 7, 2025

As such, the Levee and Refinery Harms do not "lie at the end of a highly attenuated chain of possibilities but [are] rather a credible threat that qualifies as an actual and imminent harm." … First, if a taking occurred, the opinion "carrie[d] with it the assurance of immunity[,]" and the absence of such opinion "raise[d] the potential of liability[.]" Id.

Hoge v. Washburn

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2024

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 favor, so long as the other Winter … Importantly, 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 favor the moving