Case law

In Re Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives' Overtime Pay Litigation

336 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2004

The CR must evaluate all other coverage issues, however, such as whether the cause of loss is covered or excluded under the policy, whether a person qualifies as an “insured” under the policy, whether the subject of the loss … The evidence clearly demonstrated that FIE management and supervisors largely ignored any enforcement of this “policy.”

State v. Bray

281 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2016

Indeed, defendant himself proposed early in the proceedings that “the [c]ourt approve a court-qualified forensic expert to do a forensic search.” *616 Third, we conclude that the trial court did not follow the standards and … By that criterion the document at issue here is clearly not a request for discovery. This case was tried, briefed, and argued before we clarified the appropriate procedures and criteria in State v.

Beber v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 12, 2019

Redner also found Plaintiff's "psychotic symptoms, attentional problems, and behavioral disturbances clearly began long before any substance abuse." Tr. 801. … and the objectives of the credit-as-true rule foreclose the argument that a remand for the purposes of allowing the ALJ to have a mulligan qualifies

Cheshire v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 18, 2024

Because plaintiff did not establish presumptive disability at step three, the ALJ continued to evaluate how her impairments affected her ability to work. … 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.

Shaner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2024

‘“Substantial evidence’ means ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance,’ or more clearly stated, ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” … Plaintiff's step-one arguments therefore do not establish harmful error.”).

James Andrew Bussmann

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2023

The Sisters argue that Debtor is not eligible for chapter 12 relief, because he does not qualify as a family farmer because a majority of his debts did not arise out of a farming operation. … The operations included growing and harvesting the cranberry crop, clearly farming operations. The state court judgment reads: Defendant James A.

Saif Corp. v. Allen

320 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1994

Claimant disagrees and argues that, even under the cases on which insurer relies, this claim qualifies for a fee award under ORS 656.386(1). … the director may be modified only if it: “(a) Violates a statute or rule; *213 “(b) Exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; “(c) Was made upon unlawful procedure; or “(d) Was characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Davenport

334 Or. 298 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2002

The Bar has the burden of establishing the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. BR 5.2. … Here, what the accused did clearly was wrong. He is not a simple scapegoat.

Juliana v. United States

217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 10, 2016

the issue to a coordinate political department; [ (2) ] a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; [ (3) ] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly … Congress had the power to decline to recognize a foreign state the Executive had decided to recognize, the president would be unable to assure that foreign state that its ambassadors would be received, its officials would be immune

Karthauser v. Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 28, 2022

Blitz, who had not met Servo before, directed the investigation and instructed Servo not to interview Karthauser because he did not want to give Karthauser immunity from criminal prosecution. … Employees “need not be identical” to qualify as similarly situated; they must simply be “similar in material respects.” Earl, 658 F.3d at 1114.

Nietzche v. Freedom Home Mortgage Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 8, 2019

collect on their own behalf do not qualify as debt collectors under the FDCPA); Schlegel v. … The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing sufficient service of process on Beneficial and BF1.

Armatta v. Kitzhaber

327 Or. 250 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1998

Thus, although the debates from the Indiana constitutional convention do not reveal clearly the drafters’ intent when they created the separate-vote requirement, the debates do indicate that the delegates viewed the amendment … «íjí * * * * *270 “(c) An initiative amendment to the Constitution may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to eight percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for

Ramer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 19, 2019

Scott Alvord and Richard Browning, PMHNP, both submitted by Plaintiff after the ALJ issued her decision, establish that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Pl. Br. 15, ECF No. 17. … The opinion of a treating provider who does not qualify as an acceptable medical source may nonetheless be given greater weight than the opinion of a treating provider who does so qualify, depending on an evaluation of

State v. Butler

96 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1919

His qualifying reservations only affect the weight to be given to those sworn statements. … by the ordinary and established methods of procedure.

Cobb v. Intel Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 4, 2024

; “Do you qualify for the Rule of 75?”; and “I’d be looking forward to retirement if I were you.” Mahoney also asked Cobb, “Do you dye your hair?” … “Direct evidence typically consists of clearly sexist, racist, [ageist,] or similarly discriminatory statements or actions by the employer.” Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2005).

Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 9, 2024

Engels’ testimony at the remand trial is clearly inconsistent with Plaintiff’s earlier position. Rather, Dr. … The Court sustained Plaintiff’s hearsay objection because Defendant could not establish that it was sent by someone with knowledge of the event(s) documented in the email. Mays v.

Kaplan v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 2024

Defendants removed to federal court and answered the Complaint, alleging the affirmative defenses of comparative fault, qualified immunity, and the state-law damages cap. ECF 7. … Under this standard, a parent is not immune from tort liability solely based on the parent-child relationship, but certain conduct is privileged or not tortious.

Phillips v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2023

‘Substantial evidence’ means ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance,’ or more clearly stated, ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Bray v. … Arnold Under the new regulations, a non-examining opinion is evidence the ALJ “must consider” because consultants are “highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2022

First, Defendant argues that further proceedings are necessary “for the ALJ to clearly explain whether Listing 11.02 is met or equaled and why.” Def.’s Br. 4. … However, “allowing the ALJ to revisit the medical opinions and testimony that she rejected for legally insufficient reasons” does not qualify as a “useful purpose.”

Harris v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 4, 2017

“Based upon a conversation I had with [Harris] regarding the expenses in question, the expenses for entertaining business customers would have certainly qualified for reimbursement assuming that they had been … Plaintiffs must establish their 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).