Case law

Slockish v. United States Federal Highway Administration

682 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 2010

“In a case such as this, where the violation complained of may have caused continuing harm and where the court can still act to remedy such harm by limiting its future adverse effects, the parties clearly retain a *1196 legally … The Second and Third Claims allege that the FHWA and Garrett failed to employ a qualified archaeologist resulting in a failure to identify the cultural and historical resources in the project area.

State v. Laundy

103 Or. 443 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1922

That part of the body of the act now under examination is clearly not broader than the title of the act. … No word appearing in the statute qualifies “organizes” or “helps to organize” or “become a member of ,” and the only word which qualifies “assemble” is the word “voluntarily.”

Eaton v. Eynon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 2022

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … It is clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit that “retaliatory actions taken against a prisoner for having exercised those rights” violate the First Amendment. Id.

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. Richmond

841 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 1993

Background Congress enacted the HCNRA Act in 1975, establishing the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, located generally along the Snake River in Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho. … In that case, the plaintiff organization clearly sought not just to compel the promulgation of a rule or regulation, but the promulgation of a rule or regulation having a particular content.

State v. Ramoz

367 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2021

Defendant called a single witness—Meneely—who was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic toxicol- ogy. Meneely testified that Xanax was a sedative, and, when mixed with alcohol, it is “severely sedating.” … We will make such determination only in the presence of exceptional circumstances, as where the error is insignificant or clearly not prejudicial.

Idaho Department of Fish & Game v. National Marine Fisheries Service

850 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 1994

Survival Once a suitable base period is established, NMFS must then look at the scope and nature of the proposed' “activity” submitted for consultation. … NMFS has clearly made an effort to create a rational, reasoned process for determining how the action agencies are doing in their efforts to save the listed salmon species.

City of Portland v. Electric Lightwave, Inc.

452 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 5, 2005

Clearly, the issue of cost versus compensation was considered and rejected by Congress. … Initially, in considering the municipality’s ordinance, the court determined that certain portions of the ordinance clearly had the effect of prohibiting telecommunications services.

Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES

348 Or. 159 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 2010

Marijuana clearly falls within the first part of the definition. The second part of the definition excludes certain uses of what would otherwise be an illegal use of a drug. … The caption stated that the measure "[a]llows medical use of marijuana within limits; establishes permit system."

State v. Simon

294 Or. App. 840 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2018

COMPETENCY We turn to whether the record establishes that defendant was not competent to be tried or sentenced. … The court qualified each part of the test by adding "to the extent that *866 understanding and participation are called for in a sentencing hearing."

Bryant v. Allstate Indemnity Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 3, 2022

However, she argues that the Oregon Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Moody establishes “that an insurer’s violation of the standard of care set forth at Or. Rev. … But while Moody clearly stands for the proposition that a plaintiff can bring a negligence per se claim pursuant to O.R.S. § 746.230(1), in addition to a breach of contract claim, against an insurance company, it is silent

Sause and Schnitzer

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2023

Schnitzer said that he would only con- sider accepting Sause’s eggs if she signed the same forms that were routinely used for anonymous gamete donors by OHSU, despite Sause clearly not being an anonymous donor. … When an error qualifies as plain, “the decision whether to review [it] rests with the discretion of the appel- late court.” Id.

Wade

District Court, D. Oregon · May 6, 2026

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … Telling Wade that she would “get in trouble” for participating in Svoboda’s misconduct, ECF 73-1 at 76:11-17, and, as Wade 1 The Court does not address any issue of qualified immunity because Svoboda did not make that

Bossard v. Dept. of Rev. (TC-MD 190283R)

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 23, 2020

Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under IRC section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. See Reese v. … Had Plaintiff timely filed his return, he might have been entitled to a refund of some portion of the amounts withheld but not the entire amount. 6 Plaintiff’s state of mind is clearly shown by his deliberate act of filing

Sierra v. Moreno

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 14, 2024

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips … A request for a mandatory injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored and shall not be granted unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S.

State v. Pedersen

338 Or. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 2025

Existing case law establishes some types of pretrial events as critical stages of a criminal proceeding for right- to-counsel purposes. See, e.g., Argersinger v. … On the latter point, we rea- soned somewhat summarily that “[t]he arraignment con- templated by statute clearly is a critical stage of a criminal 374 State v.

Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 2024

The scope of the rule comes through even more clearly in comment f, which clarifies what engaged in the “business of selling” a product means: “It is not necessary that the seller be engaged solely in the business of … In fact, the comment suggests that the primary limitation on what qualifies as “engaged in the business of selling” is that it excludes “the ordinary individual who makes the isolated sale.” Id.

Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 2024

The scope of the rule comes through even more clearly in comment f, which clarifies what engaged in the “business of selling” a product means: “It is not necessary that the seller be engaged solely in the business of … In fact, the comment suggests that the primary limitation on what qualifies as “engaged in the business of selling” is that it excludes “the ordinary individual who makes the isolated sale.” Id.

Sause and Schnitzer

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2023

Schnitzer said that he would only con- sider accepting Sause’s eggs if she signed the same forms that were routinely used for anonymous gamete donors by OHSU, despite Sause clearly not being an anonymous donor. … When an error qualifies as plain, “the decision whether to review [it] rests with the discretion of the appel- late court.” Id.

Cyber Acoustics, LLC v. Belkin International, Inc.

988 F. Supp. 2d 1236 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 2013

An affirmative defense is legally insufficient only if it clearly lacks merit “under any set of facts the defendant might allege.” Polk v. … Second, to establish inequitable conduct a party must plead materiality and intent.

Harwood v. HOWARD GROUP, INC.

86 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 2000

Both states raise the bar fairly high: ... clauses which purport to exculpate an indemnitee from liability for losses flowing solely from his own acts or omissions are not favored and are to be clearly drawn and strictly … It is a firmly established rule that contracts of indemnity will not be construed to cover losses to the indemnitee caused by his own negligence unless such intention is expressed in clear and unequivocal terms.