Case law

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

Brooks v. Tube Specialties - TSCO International

300 Or. App. 361 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2019

As the reason for the denial, insurer stated, “There is insufficient evidence to establish that [claimant] sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” … That said, Anheluk and Hooper appear to have been decided on their facts—even if those facts are not readily apparent from the short published orders—and do not clearly state a general board policy of awarding an attorney

Loveall

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2026

If the defendant does so, the plaintiff must “establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case.” … Failure to give statutorily required notice, for instance, does not qualify as protected conduct under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute. Id. at 4–5.

Miller v. Mallery

410 F. Supp. 1283 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 5, 1976

Clearly, “the man-caused risk is higher than lightning right now,” (Wilson Depo. p. 38) as shown by statistics from 1960 to 1973 in the Bull Run. … The defendants have responded with statements of policy and purpose, not with evidence that establishes a protective practice. 11 *1297 VII.

Garfias v. Portland Spray Works, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 3, 2021

The defendant must articulate the affirmative defense clearly enough that the plaintiff is “not a victim of unfair surprise.” Bd. of Trustees of San Diego Elec. Pension Trust v. … Defendant accuses Plaintiff of misappropriating trade secrets by and through the establishment of a competing business and issuance of a competitive bid with one of Defendant’s prospective clients. Id. at ¶¶ 47–48.

State v. Miller

300 Or. 203 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1985

This is required to encourage patients to discuss frankly and freely their mental or emotional problems so that the professional can accurately determine whether he or she is qualified to treat them. … “Clearly, the two requisites of the doctrine are linked; however, the major thrust of each can be separated.

Vidal v. Safeway, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2021

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case indirectly by showing: “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated … Vidal’s opposition to that racial harassment was clearly protected activity . . . . Raising one’s voice to request assistance and oppose racially harassing conduct is protected activity.”); see also id. at 15 (“Mr.

Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego

267 Or. 452 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1973

The trial court, on the other hand, held that this test did not apply but that the test was "whether there has been a showing that the action taken by the city and its planning commission was clearly unreasonable and arbitrary … The effect of our opinion is to say either that the term "garden apartment" has no meaning, or that if it does we, rather than the city council, will decide which structures qualify under that term.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Paulson

346 Or. 676 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 2009

DR 2-106(A) DR 2-106(A) prohibits a lawyer from charging an illegal or clearly excessive fee. … Instead, he disputes only whether his conduct qualified as the practice of law.

Roisland v. Flagstar Bank, FSB

989 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 26, 2013

Brandrup and Niday establish that MERS cannot legally hold this beneficial interest, however. … In this case, the deed of trust clearly provides that “[t]he Note or a partial interest in the Note . (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.”

Cisneros

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 21, 2026

established federal law. … For all of these reasons, the PCR court’s decision is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law and habeas relief is denied in its entirety.

Singh v. Washburn

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 30, 2020

Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Keenan did not clearly establish that constant illumination violates the Eighth Amendment when done for a legitimate penological purpose. … The prohibition against retaliatory punishment for filing grievances is “clearly established law.”

Lawson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 29, 2016

ORS 316.007(1).3 “Any term used in this chapter has the same meaning as when used in a comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes, unless a different meaning is clearly required … Plaintiff must establish her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

Porteous v. Flowers Foods, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2025

In sum, the Court concludes that the Distributor Agreement qualifies as a contact of employment and Plaintiff qualifies as a transportation worker such that § 1 of the FAA will apply. … The text and context both clearly establish that the FAA is to be given primacy, and that Oregon law applies only so long as it is not inconsistent with the FAA.

Pacificorp v. Northwest Pipeline GP

879 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 16, 2012

There are clearly questions of fact about the first and second steps of the causal chain. … (illustrating the distinction between lay and expert opinion testimony by noting that “a lay witness with experience could testify that a substance appeared to be blood, but that a witness would have to qualify as an expert

Gouge v. David

185 Or. 437 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1948

. *443 For several years the appellant operated establishments in which he sold and served beer. … In our opinion, the act clearly states that all licenses must, expire December 31.

Commons at Cedar Mill, LLC v. Washington County Assessor and Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 24, 2018

In 2001, the legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2204, which established a new taxation regime for low-income housing projects, which would apply at the option of the property owner. … As described above, ORS 308.704 clearly states that a property owner may choose whether to participate in the low income housing special assessment program.

United States ex rel. Berglund v. Boeing Co.

835 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 13, 2011

Moreover, the legislative history clearly indicates Congress intended an inquiry similar to other whistle blower statutes. … See, e.g., Leon, 464 F.3d at 959 (the relevance of destroyed documents cannot be clearly ascertained). 5.

Meyer v. Mittal

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2023

Emails qualify as electronic communication. See Theofel, 359 F.3d. at 1075. e. … Relevant here, an entity other than an ISP may qualify as a “provider” of ECS.5 To clarify the types of entities that may qualify as a provider of ECS, the Court next considers § 2701 in relation to other provisions

Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.

529 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 21, 2007

distinctive marks may qualify for protection; (3) a reconfiguration of the factors used to determine whether a mark is famous for dilution purposes, including a rejection of dilution claims based on "niche” fame; and (4) … DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 936-38 (9th Cir.2006) (extending Noerr-Pen-nington immunity to litigation-related activi *1261 ties prior to formal commencement of litigation). 18 .