Case law

Jud v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2024

opinion to establish the existence of an impairment(s).” … Against that backdrop, even though plaintiff clearly interprets the evidence differently, she has not (and cannot) establish error by simply advancing a different interpretation of the medical evidence.

Northwest Environmental Advocates v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

855 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 28, 2012

Under the CWA’s regulations, states should establish narrative criteria “where numerical criteria cannot be established or to supplement narrative criteria.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.11 (b)(2). … The record clearly demonstrates that many of Oregon’s modern waterbodies have undergone dramatic changes and are no longer the rivers they once were.

Kinzua Resources v. DEQ

323 Or. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 2022

We are thus left with two entities that petitioners repeatedly acknowledged, and the record clearly demonstrated, had legal authority over the site but did not act. … ATR and Frontier actually exercised any authority that they had over the landfill; instead the com- mission relied exclusively on the theory that the entities had the power to do so, which was all that had to be shown to qualify

Blackman v. Stutrud

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 15, 2020

The Respondent countered that these issues are resolved as the PCR trial court decision qualifies for deference from this court. (Resp. to Second Am. … AEDPA instructs federal courts to not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the adjudication of a claim in state court was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

Great Northern Insurance Company v. Crown Pine Timber 4

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 5, 2021

Based on the terms of the policies, coverage is established only if: (1) Crown Pine qualifies as an “insured”; (2) Crown Pine asserts a duty to defend against a qualifying “suit”; (3) there was “property damage”; (4) the … the duty element of a negligence claim, in the form of standards of care independent of the contract in industry standards, statutes, and regulations, it suffices to note that the allegations clearly support the remaining

State v. Gardner-Rolph

345 Or. App. 681 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 2025

The legislature has used such phrases when enacting statutes designed to overlay the guidelines (such as ORS 161.737), and thus, the legislature understands how to clearly craft statutes that are meant to function in tandem … Requires the court to give substan- tial weight to a qualifying mental health evaluation of a juvenile defendant who committed an offense before age 18 * * * includ[ing] an assessment of the person’s degree of

Masood v. Safeco Insurance

275 Or. App. 315 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015

The Loss Settlement language makes clear that the dwelling must be repaired or replaced to qualify for the replacement cost coverage.” … “Abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s discretion ‘is exercised to an end not justified and clearly against the evidence and reason.’” State v.

Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 21, 2020

This may be accomplished if: (1) “a different meaning [is] clearly and deliberately set forth in the intrinsic materials” of the patent; or (2) use of “the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a disputed term would deprive … “To qualify as prior art for an obviousness analysis, a reference must qualify as ‘analogous art,’ i.e., it must satisfy one of the following conditions: (1) the reference must be from the same field of endeavor; or (2)

Matot v. CH

975 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 26, 2013

It is highly questionable whether the allegedly obscene material (submitted by plaintiff, unsealed, as exhibit 1 to the declaration of counsel (# 16)), qualifies as obscene given contemporary standards. … To establish the predicate act of mail or wire fraud a plaintiff must allege that defendants engaged in (1) a scheme to defraud (2) to get money or property, (3) furthered by the use of interstate mail or wires.

Freedman v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

922 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 14, 1996

(internal quotations omitted)); In Re Clearly Canadian Sec. … Plaintiffs argue that such evidence is clearly admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to show “intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge.”

Technicon Instruments Corp. v. Alpkem Corp.

664 F. Supp. 1558 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 11, 1986

Clearly claim one had been conceived as involving a nonwetted system and a sample stream divided only by intersample bubbles. … Shamos and Smythe, from the information in their notebooks, clearly had an embodiment that performed.

Abed v. Astrue

737 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 24, 2010

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process for determining whether a person is disabled. Bowen v. … established by medical evidence.”

State v. Henry

78 Or. App. 392 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1986

Assuming that the vagueness issue has been raised, [2] the question, as I see it, is whether the standard established in Miller v. … Since the prohibited activity cannot be clearly delineated, the appellant argues that the statute must fail as being unconstitutionally vague. We cannot agree. "* * * In Miller v.

Klamath Tribes v. United States Bureau of Reclamation

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 2024

To establish redressability, a plaintiff must show that the relief sought is both (1) substantially likely to redress the claimed injury, and (2) within the court’s power to award. Juliana v. … The Incidental Take Statement functions as a safe harbor provision immunizing persons from Section 9 liability.

Thompson v. Dennis Widmer Construction, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 10, 2021

“The party asserting the work product doctrine bears the burden of establishing, for each document, the rule’s application.” … To the extent that DWC and CBIC had a common interest in the Thompson litigation, it was clearly circumscribed.

Oregon School Boards Association v. Marion County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 31, 2015

“Much has been written in the cases and law reviews * * * about public purpose. * * * ‘The grounds for deciding such cases * * * are seldom articulated clearly. * * * [T]he relevant inquiry would seem to be whether the … There is no statute providing for attribution of an association’s members’ activities to permit the association to qualify its property for tax exemption.

Mohiadeen v. Washington County Sheriff's Office

338 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2025

ORS 166.291(1); but see also ORS 166.293(2) (authorizing denial of a license on danger- ousness grounds, even if the person is otherwise qualified under ORS 166.291). … And its con- verse, “has never been convicted of a felony,” was included as a requirement for a concealed handgun license in ORS 166.291, which replaced ORS 166.290 and established the basic contours of the concealed handgun

Mohiadeen v. Washington County Sheriff's Office

338 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2025

ORS 166.291(1); but see also ORS 166.293(2) (authorizing denial of a license on danger- ousness grounds, even if the person is otherwise qualified under ORS 166.291). … And its con- verse, “has never been convicted of a felony,” was included as a requirement for a concealed handgun license in ORS 166.291, which replaced ORS 166.290 and established the basic contours of the concealed handgun

Matthews v. Legacy Health

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2024

However, Plaintiff’s religious discrimination claims—as plead in the original Complaint—are clearly grounded on a failure to accommodate theory of recovery. See e.g. … ; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or other circumstances surrounding

Kay v. Plaid Pantry, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 27, 2025

Violations of data privacy statutes may result in tangible or intangible harms that qualify as concrete injuries under Article III. … Although the Court rejects this argument, it was not clearly foreclosed by the law, and Defendants’ arguments were not frivolous. See Lott, 492 F.3d at 794.