Case law

Marincovich v. Lautenbacher

553 F. Supp. 2d 1237 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2008

A Court must look at the decision not as the biologist or statistician that courts are qualified neither by training nor experience to be, but as a reviewing court exercising its narrowly defined duty of holding agencies … NMFS also found and plaintiffs fail to demonstrate clearly any successful completely isolated hatchery system persisting for any appreciable time. See AR 2167-01.

Riverhawks v. Zepeda

228 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 14, 2002

Plaintiffs maintain that Colin Peter Dillingham, a Forest Service botanist and wildlife biologist, is not qualified to give expert testimony. … Here, the record clearly establishes the presence of potentially significant effects.

Soda Mountain Wilderness Council v. United States Bureau of Land Management

945 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 10, 2013

The Monument was established by presidential proclamation in 2000 and is currently 58,000 acres. … The RMP, which qualifies as a current plan, clearly requires that harvesting “[m]eet the 40 percent minimum throughout the Matrix with per-acre requirements met on average areas no larger than 40 acres.” AR 20088.

Hardt v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2024

Hardt "has a compromised immune system and no longer feels comfortable entering" the business where a worker contracted the disease. Id. … However, these alleged facts are insufficient to establish that the law and facts clearly favor plaintiffs' position.

Potts

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 13, 2026

To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate that the litigant is unable to pay court fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617. … A Court must also 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Halbasch v. Med-Data, Inc.

192 F.R.D. 641 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 16, 2000

Clearly, this is a classic jury question of which witnesses were the most credible on the issue. The verdict is not against the clear weight of the evidence. B. … The statute requires defendant to “establish” the measures taken.

National Labor Relations Board v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 27, 2021

.2 This Court will not conclude without further evidence that answering inquiries that are clearly within the scope of NLRB’s service functions should be deemed an injury sufficient to establish standing. 2 For the reasons … Molasky-Arman involved an out-of-state insurance agent’s challenge to a Nevada law brought under the Privilege and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 522 F.3d 925, 931

Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corp.

1 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 1998

By contrast, “handicapped” parking spaces are reserved solely for qualifying motorists and fines are imposed upon violators. … They have not established their case.

Koch v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 30, 2021

If a local government body chooses to establish such a telephone line, Oregon Revised Statute 297.765 establishes some mandatory procedures. … “In defense to an action for defamation, Oregon recognizes two forms of privilege: absolute and qualified.

Anderson v. Gladden

188 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 13, 1960

The Provisional government of Oregon remained in existence until the Act of August 14, 1848 ( 9 Stat. 323 ), which established the Territorial government of Oregon. … Judge Solomon held that the tribes had the exclusive right, privilege and immunity to hunt and trap upon said Reservation without restriction or control, except such as they might impose upon themselves.

Hammick v. Jacobs

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 19, 2020

Even if an expert is generally qualified under Kumho Tire Co. v. … Jacobs imply, categorically establish an entitlement to summary judgment. Barnum, 264 Or. at 78-79.

Parkerson v. Young

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2022

immunity. … Claim 1: Establishment Clause The Establishment Clause “prohibits the enactment of a law or official policy that establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.”

Foshee v. Lane County

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2024

Every person who, under color of any [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … As the Complaint clearly states, Defendant foreclosed on and took ownership of the Peterson Property in September of 2017. Compl. ¶ 8.

Krahel v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.

971 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 13, 1997

And a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation may prove difficult to establish. … Congress clearly knew how to take such action when it desired. Finally, Owens cites a recent opinion from the Fourth Circuit, Austin v.

Clark v. Gulick

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 1, 2024

Finally, Defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from civil liability in this case. A. … Because the Court grants summary judgment on this ground, it does not reach the final argument raised by Defendants regarding Defendants’ qualified immunity to civil liability.

Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing

District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2025

Cir. 1972) (affirming exclusion of an accounting expert who “would do no more than make basic arithmetical computations with figures supplied to him by counsel” because it would be “expert testimony concerning matters clearly … Even if he were qualified, however, as discussed next, his opinion is unreliable. 2.

Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2025

Cir. 1972) (affirming exclusion of an accounting expert who “would do no more than make basic arithmetical computations with figures supplied to him by counsel” because it would be “expert testimony concerning matters clearly … Even if he were qualified, however, as discussed next, his opinion is unreliable. 2.

Brabham v. PATENTA NV

614 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1984

A reading of the statute clearly indicates that § 17(a) was not enacted for the special benefit of a succinct class of individuals but rather represents a "general censure of fraudulent practices...." Bruns v. … In addition to this basic disagreement, two courts had qualified the remedy, Dorfman v. First Boston Corp., 336 F.Supp. 1089 (E.D.Pa.1972), Greater Iowa Corp. v.

Wills v. Grasley

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 5, 2023

immunity. … See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (requiring that the constitutional right in question be “clearly established law” to hold a government official accountable for violating that law).

Jones v. Target Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 28, 2023

P. 72(b)(2) (establishing the procedure for challenging a findings and recommendation and providing that a party may serve objections and the opposing party may serve a response to those objections, without providing that … For example, as Judge Russo describes, Plaintiff does not allege any description of the alleged sexual harassment incident to show that it was sufficiently severe to qualify as a single event hostile work environment.