Case law

Malaer v. Kirkpatrick

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 19, 2024

[required] to establish standing depends considerably upon whether the plaintiffis himself an object of the action... at issue. … Jackson County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01232-CL, this Court denied qualified immunity based on the Jail’s allegedly unconstitutional treatment of an inmate, The denial of qualified immunity is currently on interlocutory

Dietrich v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2023

Rather, the state court’s application of clearly established federal law must be objectively unreasonable. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 (noting that “[i]t is past question” that the rule established in Strickland is clearly established federal law determined by the Supreme Court of the United States).

White v. Dietrich

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2024

This Court also denies Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order as he has failed to establish standing and irreparable harm. … Namely, Plaintiff’s TRO request fails to establish standing and irreparable harm to Plaintiff or to any purported class member.

Zyst v. Kelly

338 Or. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 12, 2025

Nor does petitioner point to evidence in the record to establish prej- udice. … Nooth, 365 Or 771, 788, 453 P3d 1274 (2019) (“[A] party’s failure to object to evidence that is clearly directed to a new issue constitutes implicit con- sent to trial of that issue.”).

Chapman v. Bond (In re Bond)

548 B.R. 570 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2016

“[T]he applicable state law must clearly define fiduciary duties and identify trust property.” Id. The requisite trust may be created by statute if it “[b]ear[s] the hallmarks of an express trust.” … "There is no intent or bad faith element needed to establish the claim...." Id. at *18. .

Douglas v. Thompson

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2024

“Retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of this right is itself a PAGE 7 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART constitutional violation, and prohibited as a matter of ‘clearly established … In the prison context, the action taken must be clearly adverse to the plaintiff.

Rogue Valley Stations, Inc. v. Birk Oil Co.

568 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 15, 1983

It is qualified to do and is doing business in Oregon. Cornitius is a California corporation doing business in Oregon. From about 1972 to December 15,1980, Cornitius operated as a Shell jobber in the Medford area. … “Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Commission v.

Washington Investment Ass'n v. Stanley

38 Or. 319 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1901

No objections having been urged to the competency or relevancy of the certificate, -we are of the opinion that it is adequate to1 establish, prima facie at least, the authority of the plaintiff to do business here. … All this, notwithstanding the mortgage stipulation to the effect that it is a Washington contract, clearly shows its Oregon nativity, and it is therefore solvable by the laws thereof: Meroney v. Atlanta B. & L.

Lee v. Albro

91 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1919

court of Multnomah County, State of Oregon, on March 25, 1893, and duly recorded; that all of the persons named in the will and codicil as trustees of the trust therein created duly accepted the office of trustee and duly qualified … With this class of business established the economic depreciation, which is well under way now, will become even more *219 rapid; the property will not warrant additional expenditure for new buildings as it will not attract

Bracken v. Douglas County

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 1, 2023

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … Because the Court concludes that Whetzel did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, it is not necessary for the Court to reach the question of qualified immunity raised by Defendants in their

Holden v. PIONEER BROADCASTING CO.

228 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1961

Ask any advertiser who spends $10 a year or $10,000,000 establishing the reputation of his product or service. … Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens.

Jackson v. Yeager

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 19, 2020

Jackson’s constitutional rights; (2) Defendants are entitled to qualified 4 —OPINION AND ORDER immunity; (3) Mr. Jackson did not administratively exhaust his claim that ODOC pits inmates against one another. Mot. … Jackson has not put forth facts which could establish that any defendant violated his constitutional rights, I do not reach the latter two arguments. I.

Miles v. Veatch

189 Or. 506 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1950

They have, moreover, established excellent reputations as drag seine fishermen, and their catch is in demand in the fish markets. Their ages run from 25 to 60 years and over. … The ballot title and the measure itself so clearly informed the voters of the nature and description of the proposed act, that the nonobservance of the statutory requirement as to the ballot heading by some of the county

Noem

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2025

The APA does not waive immunity for claims seeking “money damages.” Dep’t of Educ., 604 U.S. at 651. Plaintiffs have clearly brought claims under the APA in their Complaint. But that is not dispositive. … These well-established APA remedies are not contractual in nature.”).

State Ex Rel. Emerald People's Utility District v. Joseph

292 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1982

Defendant also argues that legislation to expedite some cases over others may create "privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens," Oregon Constitution, Art I, § 20, or … The principle of separation of powers is well established. It exists under the constitution of the United States and under the constitution of each of the 50 states.

Paullus v. YARBROUGH ET UX

219 Or. 611 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1959

This is most clearly stated in the opinion of Ritchie, E. … No doubt timber that does not qualify under that section as personal property is to be classed as real property.

State v. Berg

223 Or. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 29, 2008

Whether those facts establish that the consent was voluntary, however, is a legal issue that we review independently. … Rules of preservation are meant to ensure that the parties’ positions are presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument. State v.

State v. McCormack/Senter

321 Or. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2022

Accordingly, “[t]he right to fish ‘at all usual and accustomed’ places may, of course, not be qualified by the State.” Puyallup Tribe v. … Though it is well established that that burden falls upon the state, it is less well established what degree of proof is required to satisfy that burden.9 The appellate courts of this state have not previously addressed that

Strobel v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 6, 2025

Brooks argues that Plaintiff fails to allege or establish a substantial burden on his exercise of religion under RFRA and did not exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. … Brooks also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 1 Plaintiff’s claims against the other named Defendants were dismissed by the Court in a previous Order.

George v. Highberger

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 7, 2023

A state-court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases,” or if it “confronts a set of facts that are materially … An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law occurs if the state court applies the correct legal principle to the facts of the case in an “objectively unreasonable manner.” Woodford v.