Case law

State of Oregon v. Kader

201 Or. 300 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 12, 1954

The witness was not qualified as an expert. The record was silent as to the position of the body and the location of the blood stains. State v. … Eichardson in this case is clearly distinguishable from the subjects of inquiry in the cited cases.

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. National Marine Fisheries Service

647 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 2009

The Corps’ EA establishes that the required balancing of benefits and detriments occurred. … “Clearly, there can be a significant impact on a species even if its existence is not jeopardized.” Id.

Gessele v. Jack in the Box, Inc.

6 F. Supp. 3d 1141 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 2014

Genesis Healthcare Corporation the Third Circuit stated without analysis: To qualify for relief under the FLSA, a party plaintiff must “commence” his cause of action before the statute of limitations applying to his individual … Plaintiffs have not established they brought this action in a dual capacity.

Cobb v. Galloway

167 Or. 604 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1941

During the entire time involved the Standard Box and Lumber Company has been an existing corporation qualified under the law and its articles of incorporation to deal in real estate as well as to engage in the lumber business … Thus some distributions within the broad meaning of the term might be taxable as dividends while others clearly would not.

Spivak v. Marriott

213 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 2007

On the city’s appeal, we held that the writ of review statutes clearly contemplate that the court must first issue the writ before it may review a local government’s proceeding. … We further explained that “[t]he writ of review statutes do not * * * serve to abolish established common-law remedies!

International Longshore & Warehouse Union & Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. ICTSI Oregon, Inc.

15 F. Supp. 3d 1075 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2014

Specifically, the courts analyzed whether the conduct at issue was directly and extensively regulated by labor law and was clearly acceptable under labor law. … 8(b)(3) (which establishes that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer), or section 8(e) (which establishes that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor

Minton v. Klamath Co. Jail

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 2021

Cahill told Minton that she was not qualified to answer that question, and suggested Minton send a kyte to a sergeant regarding this request. (Id.) … Applicable Law Section 1983 provides a private right of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United

Brown v. Boise Cascade Corp.

150 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 1997

Viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the evidence established that plaintiff’s employer, Partridge, and defendant were both participants in the project of “sprucing up” the St. … There may also be (indiscernible), but if you really go back and review the standard, the actual number that applies is clearly five foot-candles in those work areas.

Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc.

857 F. Supp. 2d 1114 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 24, 2012

A district judge may reconsider a magistrate’s order where it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); Henry v. … Plaintiffs claim that Mensing overturns the law established in Foster v.

Hannah v. Washington County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · May 25, 2016

However, as the party seeking relief, Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427. … Whether Plaintiff Meets the Qualifications for Homestead Deferral The Department argues that Plaintiff no longer qualifies for Homestead Deferral under ORS 311.668(1)(c).

Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club

366 Or. 100 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Defendant established a prima facie case for equitable relief. … We agree with plaintiff and the dissent, how- ever, that the restitution claim, nevertheless, might be dis- qualified if we were to determine that defendant’s conduct in the transaction was inequitable.

Maney v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 28, 2021

“A motion to strike should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Menchu v. Multnomah Cnty. … Specifically, Defendants argue that the Court should strike paragraphs 46-49, 86-93, and 110(e) of the FAC as immaterial based on the Court’s prior ruling that discretionary immunity precludes Plaintiffs from pursuing

Nemeth v. Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC)

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2025

Plaintiff, however, does not clearly allege that Banks was in disciplinary segregation at the time of his death. … Plaintiff needs to more clearly allege when and how Banks was deprived of the amenities to adequately allege this claim.

Metro v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 25, 2024

Finally, respondents' argument that Local Rule 3-4(c) establishes that a petition for pre-suit discovery initiates a civil action is simply incorrect. … Nov. 8, 2016), establishes that the petition is removable because it plainly mirrors proceedings pending in federal court. Again, the Court disagrees.

Feskens v. Astrue

804 F. Supp. 2d 1105 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 8, 2011

STANDARDS The initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish disability. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). … The ALJ did not clearly set out the weight he gave to Dr. Moreno’s opinion. Tr. 436-37. The ALJ emphasized Dr. Moreno’s statement that Plaintiffs physi *1121 cal RFC was “essentially normal” and noted it contradicts Dr.

Teague v. Palmateer

184 Or. App. 577 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2002

The United States Constitution requires states to furnish state prisoners with "some clearly defined method by which they may raise claims of denial of federal rights." Young v. … Lane , the Court has not identified a new constitutional rule or proposed new constitutional rule that qualifies under the "watershed" exception. See United States v.

State v. Brock

53 Or. App. 785 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 1981

Dale Morford, a witness for the state under a grant of immunity, testified that he and defendant broke into mobile homes stored on the Barrett lot on several occasions during the December to February period. … I think that amendment would make a better statute, albeit a different one, from what the legislature clearly provided. [5] I would hold that the statute means exactly what it clearly says: it is sufficient to authorize the

Opal Labs Inc. v. Sprinklr, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 2, 2020

Any interpretation of the Integration Agreement that would give it effect before April 11, 2016, would clearly contradict its effective date provisions. See Frank v. … The contracts at issue in the cases that Defendant relies on in support of its argument that the Integration Agreement retroactively revoked and replaced the NDA and Teaming Agreement did not include the same qualifying

Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Daley

6 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 1, 1998

Thus, a species is threatened if it is likely to qualify for endangered status within the foreseeable future. Any interested person may petition to list a species as threatened or endangered. 16 USC § 1533 (b)(3)(A). … Diaz-Soltero “[t]he Administrative Record points clearly to the need to list ... the Oregon Coast ESU[ ] as threatened.” Id.

Lynx Franchising Intellectual Property, LLC v. Superior Fence and Construction, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 25, 2025

State Univ., 755 F.Supp.3d at 582 (holding that defendant’s affirmative defense “qualifies as a proceeding under § 1065” because it “is adverse to [Plaintiff]’s claim of ownership of [its] mark”); Gutier v. … Under Miller, a district court is bound to follow the reasoning of a precedential case “unless it had been ‘effectively overrule[d]’ or was ‘clearly irreconcilable’ with a case from the relevant court of last resort” United