Case law

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Singleton

47 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 3, 1998

Management plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area. 16 U.S.C. § 1281 (a). … “A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.” Id. Instead, mitigation measures should be supported by analytical data, Idaho Sporting Congress v.

United States v. E. K.

471 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 1979

However, since the presumption is that an offender of a certain age is a juvenile, the facts ought to clearly convince one on the side of these conclusions in order to warrant transfer. … After considerable time and sustained effort, several youth workers (and the psychiatrist) felt they had established trust and general rapport with E.K.

Bancard Services, Inc. v. E Trade Access, Inc.

292 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2003

Under the treaty, qualifying materials re *1243 ceive certain benefits, including exemption from import duties. A certificate of international character is required to receive treaty benefits. … The court described the contract as “clearly perpetual by its terms[.]” Id. at 456 , 513 P.2d at 1188 .

Stafford v. Taffet

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 23, 2025

BACKGROUND Self-represented Plaintiffs Dana Michael Stafford and Heather Leigh Stafford do not clearly allege the origin of their dispute. … RESPA requires that a loan servicer respond to a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) within sixty days of receiving the request from the borrower. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e).

Botez v. Northstar CG, LP

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 2025

Another informative provision provides how projects may qualify for a PSI Bonus: "To qualify for a bonus, a project or project phase must produce a minimum required gross profit . . . (1) with no lost time injuries, and … In Landye, the partnership clearly had discretion in deciding whether to award a bonus to a given partner.

Cornish v. United States

221 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 16, 1963

Clearly, this type of valuation is based on estimated future profits. In 1956, Hirt and Wood, for income tax purposes, each claimed a deduction of $43,170.14 as the portion amortizable for that year. … Usually, the price is established by comparative sales of similar property in the area. Olson v. United States, 67 F.2d 24 (8 Cir. 1933), aff’d. 292 U.S. 246 , 54 S.Ct. 704 , 78 L.Ed. 1236 .

LeMaire v. Maass

745 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 1990

Goldberg’s own videotape showed clearly that exercising in shower thongs on a blanket placed on the floor is dangerous. Dr. … Judges are perhaps the least qualified to fashion remedies of all participants in this type of litigation.

Finicum v. United States of America

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 5, 2021

One court concluded that these cases may qualify as misnomers. See Korbe v. Hilton Hotels Corp., Civil No. 08-1309-PK, 2009 WL 723348, at *2—3 (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2009). … Judge Sullivan recommends dismissing the conspiracy claims “with leave to amend so that Plaintiffs can more clearly state their conspiracy claim as to the State Defendants.” F. & R. [ECF 161] at 47.

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Green

953 F. Supp. 1133 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 31, 1997

The requirement that an aggrieved party exhaust administrative remedies, therefore, is limited to that which the statute or rule clearly mandates. Id. … Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir.1992), BLM argues that it was not required to prepare an EIS simply because qualified experts disagree on the impacts of the proposed action. Id. at 1333 .

FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Sierra Media, Inc.

965 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 2013

Clearly FLIR did not knowingly engage in conduct that it believed constituted trademark infringement. … Throughout the course of the litigation, Fluke has represented and the evidence *1212 has clearly established that IR Fusion “signifies a feature that enables a handheld thermal imager equipped with a digital camera to overlay

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Tidwell

716 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 4, 2010

According to this definition, as holders of grazing permits that later became subject to reinitiated consultation, permittees would qualify as applicants. … However, the ESA does not clearly state when and how applicants may participate in formal consultation. Section 7(a)(3) of the ESA provides for applicant involvement during the early consultation process.

Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.

287 F. Supp. 3d 1100 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2018

Stevick's report which is clearly delineated as a rebuttal to Dr. Guentzler's report)[.] Based on the Court's reading of this portion of Dr. Stevick's report, Dr. … First, the witness is qualified if he or she has expertise in the precise pertinent art at issue.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides v. Lyng

673 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 1987

I cannot say that one set of experts is clearly more correct than the other; I am not expected to referee an academic dispute. … I have reviewed the Fourth Narrative Statement of Mary O’Brien (July 27, 1987) and I find her qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training and education.

Whitley v. City of Portland

654 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 2009

On January 18, 2006, Whitley failed to shoot qualifying scores on day three of handgun firearms training. (Babnick Aff. Ex. 7.) … But, in 2002, the Ninth Circuit clearly held that an employer’s reliance on its subjective belief is not pretextual.

American Apparel & Footwear Association, Inc. v. Schroeder

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 22, 2022

The preemption doctrine is derived from the Supremacy Clause and “any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.” Gade v. … Thus, state sovereign immunity would not bar the relief Plaintiffs seek under Plaintiffs’ first and third counts.

FREIGHTLINER, LLC v. Teamsters Local 305

336 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

Under Ninth Circuit case law, the arbitrator is deemed not to have been construing or applying the CBA if his interpretation fails to qualify as a “plausible interpretation of the contract.” … this case fits neatly under the cases holding that arbitrators dispensed their own brand of industrial justice in ordering reinstatement of employees who had used or possessed marijuana, despite CBA drug-policy provisions clearly

Underwood v. Cox

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2020

. § 1915A, and dismissed with prejudice two federal defendants shielded from suit by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity (ECF No. 9). … Mandatory injunctive relief is disfavored, and should be denied at the preliminary injunction stage unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S.

Kishna v. USA Fish and Wildlife Services

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 2023

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)(2 … The complaint must clearly establish the claims and parties such that a defendant would have “no difficulty in responding to the claims with an answer and/or with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Hearns v.

Bala v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 2024

Defendants Henrikson and Cigarroa were denied qualified immunity. Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity. … On February 2, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum opinion affirming the denial of qualified immunity and also held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 did not provide an implied cause of action. Mem. Op., ECF 191.

Garcia v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 9, 2020

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 a set of facts that … For all of these reasons, the PCR court’s decision to deny relief on Petitioner’s Ground Three claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal