Case law

Menefee v. Washington County Jail

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 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.

Clegg v. Premo

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2024

Moreover, Petitioner cites no clearly established federal law holding that a presumption of prejudice arises from an inadvertent sighting of a shackled defendant outside of the courtroom. … The PCR court’s decision did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law and is entitled to deference.

Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2020

Further, “the Supreme Court has long recognized a qualified right of access for the press and public to observe government activities.” Jd. at 898. … Superior Court (“Press-Enterprise IT’), PAGE 6 — TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 478 U.S. 1 (1986), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for right of access claims.

Nygaard v. United Parcel Service General Services Co.

1 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 1998

Thus, as a manufacturer, § 411.340 clearly does not apply to Toppan Moore. The record indicates that Inforite did not manufacture the DIAD and that the product was never in the possession of Inforite. … In those cases, both employers receive the benefit of workers’ compensation immunity for employers.

Johnson v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 13, 2024

At all times, the most qualified person must be selected for the position, without regard to race, gender or any other protected category.” … And “The goal of any affirmative action plan should be achievement of genuine equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons.

Marrazzo v. Leavitt

719 F. Supp. 2d 1297 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 21, 2010

Bank and Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir.1993) (“To qualify as adverse, the action must be “more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or alteration of job responsibilities. … In addition, the denials of Marrazzo’s requests to work in an outside setting and the charge of three hours twenty minutes’ unexcused absence clearly had no material impact upon the terms and conditions of Marrazzo’s employment

Pinski

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 24, 2026

Mot. 28, and Defendants move for summary judgment as to all remaining claims and have asserted a defense of qualified immunity as to Bowers and Krause. … Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the substance of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the individual Defendants, the Court need not reach the question of qualified immunity.

DAVIS WINE COMPANY v. Vina Y Bodega Estampa, SA

823 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 13, 2011

In Calkins it was stated that: The law never contemplated that persons engaged in business as partners may incorporate with intent to obtain the advantages and immunities of corporate form, and then, Proteus like, become … Clearly Cesar Bistue intended for the Agreement not to reference DWC because he wanted to avoid the necessity of a name change.

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

Olinger

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2026

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 … 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 party. Stanley v. Univ. of S.

Behringer v. City of Ashland

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2024

Irreparable Harm A plaintiff seeking an injunction must “must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible.” … immunity.

Martinez v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2020

“It is well established that agencies of the state are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from private damages or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court.” Savage 3 - ORDER TO DISMISS v. … Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing the existence of a liberty interest which gives rise to the due process protections enumerated in Wolff.

Hebrard v. Nofziger

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 25, 2022

immunity. … Balisok, precludes a prisoner from seeking damages for an alleged constitutional violation which, if established, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, sentence, or deprivation of good-time credits.

Taylor

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 27, 2026

Plaintiff also cannot establish a cause of action against NW Onsite for negligence. … Plaintiff cannot establish that a duty was breached by NW Onsite under the circumstances present here.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Star Technologies, Inc.

935 F. Supp. 1110 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 1996

Even though patent infringement may qualify as “piracy,” and Star Technologies’ activities may have constituted “advertising activity,” USF & G does not have a duty to defend under the policies unless that piracy occurred … Instead, his Complaint clearly alleges harm resulting from Star Technologies’ manufacture and sale of the reconstruction processors.

Romero v. Reyes

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 13, 2024

A state court decision is ”contrary to . . . clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases” or “if the state court confronts … De La Cruz would be qualified to testify regarding the structure and functioning of the 18th Street Gang generally.

Bowerman v. St. Charles Health System, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 2024

I have boosted my immunity and my body with self-care, rest, immune supporting foods, vitamins, and minerals, all given by God to do just this. … Clearly, the “except[ion]” to the five-year limitation period of ORS 659A.875(1) applies.

Wood v. Washburn

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2022

immunity from money damages. … immunity.

Matthews v. Carey

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 27, 2021

The State of Oregon has not waived its sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The Oregon Tort Claims Act (‘OTCA’) does provide for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. … Applicable Law The Ninth Circuit has “held that in the prison context, the ‘prohibition against retaliatory punishment is clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit[.]’

Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Cain

292 F. Supp. 3d 1119 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 13, 2018

ONDA argues BLM's own wilderness handbooks require on-the-ground surveys to establish the existence of a route. … A new route is clearly one that never existed, but has now been brought into existence, by construction or use." Id. (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 460nnn-22(b) and (d) (emphasis added) ).