Case law

State v. Cocke

161 Or. App. 179 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1999

The Oregon Supreme Court has, however, clearly applied the officer safety principle of Bates in evaluating the permissible intrusiveness of both pre- and post-arrest searches. In State v. … A conjecture that there might be people who might have a motivation to interfere with an investigation some time in the next half hour hardly qualifies as a reasonable suspicion of an "immediate" threat of serious physical

Lund v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 11, 2023

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify. Jd. … An independent review of the record establishes that the ALJ properly considered the’ objective medical record in discounting the Plaintiffs subjective symptom testimony.

Hill v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 20, 2024

Plaintiff alleges disability based on tingling/numbness from head to toe, tremors, vision loss, short term memory loss, balance issues, aching joints, depression, fatigue, and immune … Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The revised social security regulations are clearly irreconcilable with our caselaw according special deference to the opinions of treating and examining physicians on account

Kohl v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 3, 2022

explained that even if the Court accepted the argument that the ALJ needed to perform a DAA analysis, any error was harmless because the ALJ “did consider whether Plaintiff would be disabled if he stopped using drugs by qualifying … The Ninth Circuit explained that “[i]f—and only if—the ALJ found [the claimant] was disabled under the five-step inquiry, should the ALJ have evaluated the role of [the claimant’s] alcohol dependency, if any, in establishing

Gabriel v. Broadspire Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 10, 2020

Defendants argue that Gabriel fails to allege that she opposed any practices, made a complaint, or caused a proceeding to occur as required by the statute (Mot. to Dismiss at 4), but the statute also clearly protects an … Cal. 2015) (denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff’s name on a Department of Labor list of witnesses for an audit qualified as a “protected activity” under the Fair Labor Standards Act

King v. State Industrial Accident Commission

211 Or. 40 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1957

In order to establish their contention, they presented declarations upon the subject which, they swore, the deceased had made. The purported declarations were received without objection. … Clearly, the Shepard and Pratt pronouncements did not intend to overrule the Farnam and McKinnon decisions nor to discard the rule they employed.

Flir Systems, Inc. v. Sierra Media, Inc.

903 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 9, 2012

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if: (1) the expert’s scientific … That is not enough under Oregon law to establish malice.

Powell's Books, Inc. v. Myers

599 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 12, 2008

Generally, to establish constitutional standing, “a plaintiff ‘must show that (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2 … Rather, they follow the rule that speech integral to the commission of a crime is unprotected under the First Amendment. 16 “It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity

Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

402 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 2005

Clearly, the science is evolving, causing NOAA Fisheries to present the questions to the panels of scientists for study. … No, clearly, CCT habitat needs are not the same as watershed condition.

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC

371 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 4, 2023

Living Essentials, LLC state,” a qualifier that the court took to indicate that “the acts to be remedied as unlawful trade practices are ones that have affected consumers—in other words, ones that materially bear on consumer … The third relevant word is “confusion,” which has multiple definitions, some of which are clearly not applicable here.6 In context, the definitions that are potentially rele- vant are the following: “2 a : a state of

City of Portland v. Bartlett

304 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2020

Cite as 304 Or App 580 (2020) 593 “[t]he initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people by subsections (2) and (3) of this section are further reserved to the qualified … Using the well-established statutory interpretation framework described in State v.

PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. LegitScript LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2024

concluded: It would contravene Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent for this Court to fashion a new rule that deprives a plaintiff of an antitrust cause of action and immunize … PharmacyChecker argues, however, that the Ninth Circuit has spoken to even more egregious conduct—whether direct illegality by an antitrust plaintiff negates that plaintiff’s antitrust standing—and has clearly answered

Doty v. Fox Head, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 2019

The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that removal is proper. Moore-Thomas, 553 F.3d at 1244. … e-mail itself clearly and unequivocally provides the requisite notice of removability” and that “context” and the defendant’s “subjective knowledge of Ms.

Fredrickson v. Starbucks Corp.

980 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2013

Gemperle’s declarations, then, I find Starbucks has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds $5,000,000. … See Lippitt, 340 F.3d at 1044 (clearly distinguishing cases which “directly challenge a right or liability’’ under federal law from those which “implicate” a federal law).

Kandra v. United States

145 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2001

In light of the diverse water demands, Reclamation initiated a public process to establish a new long-term operating plan. … The regulations clearly allow an agency to prepare an EA "on any action at any time” to assist in planning. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3 (b). 5 . Three declarants, however, do not appear to be parties to this litigation.

Boyle v. Nelson

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 24, 2025

Plaintiff alleges that Hudson’s presence was inappropriate, but does not clearly identify what constitutional right, if any, was implicated by Hudson’s presence at the settlement conferences. … Mere negligence is not sufficient to establish liability. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.

Mil-Ray v. EVP International, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 2021

A qualifying transaction is “defined as any sale consummated by [defendant] to a Customer . . . that has been introduced by [plaintiff] through the procedures set forth on Addendum A to this Agreement.” … The wireless agreement contained a narrow arbitration clause, which clearly covered the contractual claims.

City of Portland v. Iheanacho

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2022

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). … Nothing in the record here reflects that defendants clearly and unequivocally manifested an intent to forgo the requirements of the “Notice of Default” provisions. See Anderson v.

In re Lumber Inc.

124 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 1954

That is clearly the power and duty of the bankruptcy courts under the reorganization sections. In Taylor v. … The evidence does not establish what stock he had in mind, nor is there any evidence that Bradley ever disposed of his stock in the bankrupt.

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. SP

346 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2009

ORS 418.783 establishes the CAMI program as a part of the Department of Justice. … In Davis , the Court cited Bourjaily as a case in which "the statements at issue were clearly nontestimonial." Davis, 547 U.S. at 825 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 .