Case law

Boyce v. St. Vincent DePaul (Lane Co)

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2024

To establish a prima facie claim for FHA disparate-treatment a Plaintiff must allege she: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) applied for, and was qualified to receive, a rental or housing relationship or a term … To establish a prima facie disparate-impact claim under the FHA a plaintiff must establish “at least that the defendant's actions had a discriminatory effect.” Gamble, 104 F.3d at 306 (quotations omitted).

McMillin v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2024

When proceedings are brought in forma pauperis, a court evaluates whether the complaint “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff’s allegation— that Defendant “stole” his can—if accepted as true, has sufficient factual content to establish a claim for conversion.

Dawson v. Payless for Drugs

248 Or. 334 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1967

The Second Restatement of the Law of Torts now states the rule in this qualified form. … The law is well established — and needs no citation of authority — to the effect that a person who needlessly encounters a known hazard is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Konecny v. Vaafusuaga

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2021

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . 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 … “‘The requisite causal connection can be established . . . by setting in motion a series of acts by others 1 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, arguing Plaintiff has not

Menasha Corp. v. Crawford

332 Or. 404 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2001

Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (establishing that paradigm of statutory interpretation). … TTD benefits are not due and payable if the claim does not meet the qualifying statutory criteria.

In re the Marriage of Hutchinson

187 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 2003

Wife also asserts that husband failed to rebut her evidence that husband was qualified for employment at an annual salary in the range of $120,000 to $150,000. … If the requisite change in circumstances is established, “ ‘[t]he overriding consideration in determining the appropriate amount of spousal support is what is “just and equitable,” * * * under the totality of the circumstances

Lourim v. Swensen

147 Or. App. 425 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1997

In brief, the statute clearly does apply to negligence claims, but only those involving “knowingly allowing, permitting or encouraging child abuse.” … The addition of the qualifier “knowingly” was merely intended to limit the scope of such claims to those in which the employers have actual knowledge of the employee’s abusive conduct.

State v. Lyon

304 Or. 221 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1987

Like the Alaska Supreme Court in Pulakis, supra, at 479 , we concluded in Brown that “no judgment of polygraph testing’s validity or potential rate of error can be established based on available scientific evidence,” 297 … Defendant’s decision to testify was clearly voluntary and was not the result of any constitutionally proscribed police conduct. See State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983).

Clement v. Ecolab, Inc.

341 F. Supp. 3d 1205 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2018

"Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.... … MacKenzie Engineering Inc. , 324 Ore. 372 , 376, 927 P.2d 86 (1996) (" 'A contract will not be construed to provide immunity from the consequences of a party's own negligence unless that intention is clearly and unequivocally

Port of Portland v. the M/V Paralla

703 F. Supp. 1446 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 30, 1988

Connecticut National Bank (hereinafter “CNB”) qualified as such a trustee and in that capacity handled the bonds issued by Automar IV and purchased by Montagu. … The evidence elicited from David Neset and David Cheramy, both representatives of the Port, clearly established that other meetings of this type occurred and that the discounts, like those allowed here, were regularly granted

Gottfried

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 26, 2026

To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate that he is unable to pay court fees and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Tripati v. … Courts must also screen an applicant’s complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. 29 U.S.C

United States v. Boothroyd

403 F. Supp. 2d 1011 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2005

If petitioner had established his eligibility for the safety valve, petitioner would have been sentenced under the federal guidelines and not subject to any statutory minimum sentence. … improbable” that he possessed a weapon in connection with the offense. ****** In contrast, although the burden of proof for the safety valve under § 5C1.2 also remains on the defendant, to qualify for relief the defendant

Clark v. Wolf

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 10, 2021

Wolf and Cuccinelli further assert that even if this Court were to find that they could be held liable under Bivens, the case against them should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments. B.

Crossman v. United States

378 F. Supp. 1312 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 1974

Because Proebstel was not qualified under federal regulations to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), he was flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), 14 C.F.R. 91.105-9. 1 *1315 There was no known radio contact with the … The location and height of the “antenna farm” was clearly marked on the applicable aeronautical section chart. This suffices to refute Plaintiffs’ contention of the controller’s negligence.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Nguyen

194 Or. App. 604 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 2004

That is, some mutually agreed-upon understanding that establishes goals, establishes ways to measure those goals, and that you enter into that agreement in good faith, that you agree to be candid and forthcoming, that you … She also testified that, “the literature * * * speaks very clearly to the need for parents to identify * * * what the triggers were that led to the abuse.”

Jenkins v. Roberts

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2025

Even if Jenkins had named a proper defendant, however, he does not allege that he has a qualifying disability under the ADA. … Furthermore, it does not appear that Jenkins was “otherwise qualified” to work in TRCI’s kitchen given the eight-hour work requirement.

Mouktabis v. Amarou

314 Or. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2021

Dept. of Rev., 356 Or 282, 296, 337 P3d 768 (2014) (“[W]hen a term is a legal one, we look to its ‘established legal meaning’ as revealed by * * * legal dictionaries.”); see also Oliver L. … men- tally impaired so as to be incapable of understanding the nature and significance of the proceeding or incapable of making those critical decisions that are the parent’s right to make, then a court would clearly

State v. Patnesky

265 Or. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2014

Thus, the phrase “engaging in” qualifies “passive resistance” as a particular activity; in this context, “engaging in *** passive resistance” is not merely a characterization of how an individual may refuse a lawful order … “(c) ‘Resists’ means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly intended

McGanty v. Staudenraus

321 Or. 532 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1995

In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that “it would defy both reason and fairness to hold liable an employer who wrongfully discharges an employee but to immunize from liability an employer who, for equally improper … Because nothing in the complaint qualifies that allegation or makes it ambiguous, however, we have no occasion to construe plaintiffs admission. 4 The parties disagree about whether the plaintiff or the corporate-agent defendant

Columbia River Gorge Resort LLC v. Wasco County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 5, 2016

The only issue is whether the subject property qualifies under subpart (a). … However, ORS 305.288(1)(a) specifies that only specific types of dwellings qualify. B.