Case law

League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Forsgren

163 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 7, 2001

Plaintiffs argue that the administrative record clearly establishes that B.t.k. is a pesticide that is harmful to all butterflies and other Lepidoptera; that exposure to B.t.k. will kill most species of moths and butterflies … Defendants argue that rather than downplaying any negative information on potential human health effects, as plaintiffs contend, a review of the EIS establishes that it clearly evaluates and discloses it.

Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Gresham

Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

The utilities in this case all were operating without franchises, and the challenged fee qualified as a privilege tax. … Pursuant to those enactments, the city established a license fee of seven percent.

Walker Macy LLC v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

243 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2017

“When interpreting a statute, the court begins with the statutory text and interprets statutory terms in accordance with their ordinary meaning, unless the statute clearly expresses an intention to the contrary.” … Labor unions .were concerned about the H-l classification not having any requirement for determining the availability of qualified U.S. workers.

Hilton v. Motor Vehicles Division

93 Or. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 1988

"(g) If the person arrested submitted to the test, the person administering the test was qualified to administer the test under ORS 487.815. … It clearly provides that the suspension is for refusing or failing the test, not for committing the offense. The fact that the sanctions for the offense are penal in nature does not make suspension a penalty.

Jenkins v. Jenkins

171 Or. 629 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 4, 1943

In order to he sure, he employed a qualified surveyor and was told that his lines were accurate. … The form of the law which governs such a situation has become well defined and established through repeated judicial determinations.

State Ex Rel. Joseph v. Mannix

133 Or. 329 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1930

Clearly under such circumstances his statement to the federal Supreme Court was unwarranted. … Moreover, it should not be done unless the evidence clearly establishes the truth of the complaint. A judgment of guilt upon a charge of deceit is always unwelcome and injurious.

State v. Ausplund

86 Or. 121 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1917

The extent of proof, to establish the negative averment in such a case, would necessarily be limited by the circumstances. … L., because it was not essential to the decision of that case; but his reasoning clearly leads to that conclusion. Although there was a vigorous dissent by Mr. Justice King, with whom concurred Mr.

David Hill Development, LLC v. City of Forest Grove

688 F. Supp. 2d 1193 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 2010

Furthermore, under Oregon law, a government action must be intentional in order to qualify as a taking without just compensation. … “In this circuit it is clearly established that a plaintiff may pursue an equal protection claim by raising a ‘triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ asserted [rational basis] ... was merely a pretext’ for differential

State v. Kennedy

295 Or. 260 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1983

If the argument is only that the federal guarantees are older than the Oregon Constitution, the fact, of course, is that they were adopted in order to bind the federal government to guarantees already established in the existing … another.” 18 USC § 242 : “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Frosty v. Textron, Inc.

891 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 22, 1995

Moreover, under Daubert, even the subjective opinion of a qualified engineer should be rejected if the opinion is wholly untested. See Stanczyk v. Black & Decker, 836 F.Supp. 565, 567 (N.D.Ill.1993). … Plaintiff is the duly appointed personal representative of the estate which has been established in Linn County, Oregon.

Juliana v. United States

339 F. Supp. 3d 1062 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 15, 2018

On July 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied federal defendants' second mandamus petition, holding that federal defendants had not met the standard to qualify for mandamus relief. … The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

Portland General Electric Co. v. Judd

184 Or. 386 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1948

municipal corporations were created in the same manner, and were in existence when the organic law was amended, we do not think the terms ‘local’ and ‘special’, as used in Section la of Article IV of the constitution to qualify … In that case the plain *401 tiff was a quasi-municipal corporation suing to protect the public interest against a clearly unauthorized attempt to invoke the referendum.

City of Portland v. Boeing Co.

179 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2001

schemes set forth in O.R.S. 448.265 or O.R.S. 468B.020, it is clear from Judge Stewart that it may pursue a common law public nuisance claim based on activity declared by the state legislature to be sufficiently hazardous to qualify … The definitions of the terms are not mutually exclusive and clearly contain some ov *1199 erlap.

State v. Lissy

304 Or. 455 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1987

She retained an attorney and was granted immunity for her cooperation. … Read alone, ORS 165.540(1)(a) clearly exempts as a criminal offense that which would be illegal under chapter 165.

Dossett v. Ho-Chunk, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2020

Dossett alleges that statements in the articles referencing NCAI’s investigation of Dossett’s conduct do not clearly include the result of the investigations: • “The terrible secret was apparently exacerbated by … Rather, the statement is clearly one person’s subjective impression of Dossett, not an objective fact. See Lieberman v.

Cook v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

50 Or. App. 547 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 18, 1981

Indemnity provisions are construed against holding that coverage extends to the negligence of the indemnitee, unless a contrary intention clearly appears, expressly (see Southern Pac. Co. v. … At trial and on appeal much of the evidence and argument went to establish the applicability of Layman to the agreement in this case.

Monro v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 4, 2024

immunity. … Second, even if Monro provided timely and fair notice of his new theory, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. In Mora-Contreras v. Peters, 851 F.

Acrymed, Inc. v. Convatec

317 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 14, 2004

To establish a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the subject of the claim qualifies as a statutory trade secret; (2) the plaintiff employed reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of its trade … Plaintiffs’ quantum meruit claim is clearly based on the same set of operative facts as Plaintiffs’ claim under the Act and is preempted by the Act.

Oravetz v. Oravetz

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 15, 2024

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)( … Plaintiff should briefly and clearly explain who the defendants are, what they have done, and why Plaintiff believes the defendants should be held liable for his injury.

Gurdane v. Northern Wasco County Peoples' Utility District

183 Or. 565 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 1948

A., which authorizes the issuance of bonds by utility districts, provides: “For the purpose of carrying into effect the power herein granted, any district, when authorized by a majority of the qualified voters of such district … of the council, and whether they act wisely or unwisely in so doing, it is not the province of a court of equity to interfere, so long as they exercise such judgment or discretion in good faith; * # *” *581 The evidence clearly