Case law

Lester v. Hotel Alder

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2025

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that defendants have violated a federal constitutional or statutory provision. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; In re Ford Motor Co. … Nor does his claim clearly arise out of a past criminal conviction. (See generally Compl.)

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. U.S. Natural Resources, Inc.

897 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 25, 1995

Thus, Temple-Eastex qualifies as an “insured” under the plain language of the CGL policy. … Thus, USNR has failed to establish a critical element of its estoppel claim.

Warm Springs Forest Products Industries v. Employee Benefits Insurance

74 Or. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 1985

In its haste to affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's claims, the majority virtually ignores that fact and adopts a rationale which is contrary to established legal principles and unsupported by the record. … There is no indication that any lender or other entity insisted that it give up its sovereign immunity from suit in Oregon courts.

Castagna v. Western Graphics Corp.

38 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1979

The authorities clearly do not support that conclusion. … This section is qualified by Section 892B, Comment g, as follows: Kg. Mistake as to matters not affecting invasion or harm.

State v. Ortiz

325 Or. App. 134 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2023

Vage, 278 Or App 771, 777, 379 P3d 645, rev den, 360 Or 697 (2016) (“It is well established that an error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains a competing inference that the party may have had a strate- … That testimony was sufficient to qualify Miguel to offer 156 State v.

Bekos v. Providence Health Plan

334 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 16, 2004

The plaintiff argued against enforcement of the exclusion because it did not explain if a conviction was required to qualify as an illegal act. … The dictionary definition of “illegal” is contrary to or violating a law or rule or regulation or something else (as an established custom) having the force of law.

Clay Tower Apartments v. Kemp

757 F. Supp. 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 4, 1991

The Owner or the HFA shall submit to HUD financial statements which clearly support the increase. (d) Overall Limitation. … HUD responds that the expiration of the tax abatement does not qualify as a substantial “general increase” in real property taxes; that to grant the owners of Clay Towers the adjustment they request will be to ignore the

Wright v. Dept. of Rev.

19 Or. Tax 29 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 27, 2006

reasonably plausible, and because taxpayers have not presented the kinds of evidence described in OAR 150-305.820(2)(b), the court cannot hold that the department "acted capriciously or arrived at a conclusion which was clearly … As such, they could not be the basis of an estoppel claim, Welch, 314 Or at 717 -18 , even if they were less qualified and noncommittal than they are. *Page 37

Reed v. DEL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

26 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 1976

He did undergo some additional medical examination by qualified specialists who indicated that diagnostic treatment should be pursued with the possible necessity for surgery thereafter dependent upon the diagnosis rendered … "The medical evidence alone is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case in claimant’s favor.

Anderson v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2021

Personal Participation Under § 1983, Eleventh Amendment Immunity, and Qualified Immunity Defendants also contend that defendants Bailey, Alvis, DiGiulio, Coffey … not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Loomis v. Board of Psychologist Examiners

152 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1998

The Board found that petitioner’s affidavit had stated an opinion as to the best interests of the children and had purported to compare the relative merits of the parents without clearly stating that the opinion was based … A licensing agency may discipline a licensee for false trial testimony, however, even if that individual is immune from civil suit.

State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Woodrich

279 Or. 31 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1977

The defense was clearly defined in England in 1843 by MNaghten’s Case, 8 Eng Rep 718, and established in Oregon in 1884 by State of Oregon v. Murray, 11 Or 413 , 5 P 55 . … In 1910 this court held for the first time that "[a] qualified physician may be allowed by a court to assert an opinion from an examination made of a defendant subsequent to the commission of a crime as to whether or not

City of Damascus v. State of Oregon

367 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 2020

And the voters of the city clearly had authority to decide whether to disin- corporate the city, as is evidenced by ORS 221.610 and ORS 50 City of Damascus v. … Cite as 367 Or 41 (2020) 55 not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified

Murphy v. Senior Services Division

94 Or. App. 725 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 1989

contemplate[ ] the establishment of different facilities under the auspices of different agencies to provide the services needed by persons with different problems.” … Section 504 provides: “No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States * * * shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected

Intransit, Inc. v. Excel North American Road Transport, Inc.

426 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2006

Wal-Mart qualifies as a shipper. … Phoenix Exp., Ltd., 156 F.Supp.2d 889, 892-894 (N.D.Ill.2001). *1144 Intransit’s complaint clearly states that it is a truck broker and that Excel is a carrier.

Hill v. Carlstrom

216 Or. 300 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1959

This method of assignment is clearly in violation of Bule 16 of this Court. In fact, it does not point out succinctly and clearly wherein the court is claimed to have erred, as required. … However, it appears defendant did move for a directed verdict on the general ground that plaintiff had failed to establish his case.

Pounds v. Smith

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 3, 2024

On January 8, 2024, Defendants moved for summary judgement asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Mot. for Summ. J. and Mem., ECF No. 122. … immunity, rather than on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim.

Aguilar v. Badger

304 Or. App. 769 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2020

Mother and father were not married; paternity was established by father’s acknowledg- ment on K’s birth certificate. Father filed a petition for cus- tody in June 2008. … “And so once I’ve made that determination, then I review the current parenting schedule, as much as I can, for the best interests of the child, who is clearly flourishing where he is in Oakridge.

Dish Network Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue

364 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2019

But while that view of unitary valuation clearly has its advocates, it appears to have arisen in a particular context that is not relevant in Oregon. … Much of the Tax Court's opinion is devoted to establishing the validity of that one-year time frame. We do not describe that portion of the opinion, because it is not relevant to the question before us.

Warren v. Burnham

341 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 2025

Limited use of property can qualify as open and notorious posses- sion, “but only if it is significant enough to put an owner on notice that his or her title is being challenged.” Hoffman v. … The portion of the strip affected by the bark dust was never clearly defined.