Case law

Armstrong v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2019

Third, despite the fact that throughout most of the relevant period plaintiff consistently reported passing six stools per day, the record clearly establishes that plaintiff often required twice as many trips to the bathroom … Accordingly, even if the lack of medical evidence qualified as a clear and convincing reason, it would not be sufficient because the other reasons the ALJ provided for discounting plaintiff’s symptom testimony are not

Lloyd v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 30, 2022

““Substantial evidence’ means ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance,’ or more clearly stated, ‘such relevant 5 - Opinion and Order : evidence … The ALJ may pose detailed hypothetical questions to the VE to establish what jobs, if any, the claimant can do. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1011 (9th Cir. 2014).

Johnson v. Coos County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 14, 2023

Joel Jensen, Wellpath’s Vice President for Information Technology replied that “there is a lot of scrutiny on email retention” and that the procedure should clearly state that mailboxes on legal hold would not be deleted … Id. at *7 (“The Court rejects the concept that Defendants are immune from dispositive sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) because they intended to destroy harmful ESI in all of their cases, rather than the harmful destruction

In re LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2021

First, the confidential witnesses whose statements are introduced to establish scienter must be described with sufficient particularity to establish their reliability and personal knowledge. … Even assuming that these two companies are related, Plaintiffs do not allege even an inference that a qualifying transaction occurred between them. iv.

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.”

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)

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).

Yela Fiduciary Services, LLC v. Benton County

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 14, 2022

“A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has ‘some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.’” … The party seeking spoliation sanctions bears the burden of establishing each element. Id.

Crawford

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 2026

“Accordingly, unless [the] plaintiff’s relationship with [the] defendant qualifies as the type of ‘special relationship’ that gives rise to either duty alleged, no breach of duty can have occurred.” … In addition, to the extent ACA has now produced discovery that clearly contradicts any of Crawford’s “information and belief” allegations, as ACA suggests (Def.’s Reply at 19), Crawford will have an opportunity to update

Kiasantana, LLC v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 9, 2021

First, it is well established that a common-law right of access by property owners attaches to property as an interest in land. … Rather, the owner has a qualified right that is subject to the government’s interest in regulating the safe use of public thoroughfares.

Adams v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · May 16, 2022

The FTCA “was designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort and, with certain specific exceptions, to render the Government liable in tort as a private individual … Plaintiff must establish each of the following elements of negligence under Oregon law: a.

Degon v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 2021

Defendant conceded that Plaintiff did indeed suffer a burglary loss that does qualify for coverage under the Renters Policy and the VPP Policy if its misrepresentation defense is not established. … The Complaint clearly pleads the implied covenant claim as one for breach of contract. Id. at ¶¶ at 18–23. Plaintiff’s claim is not foreclosed by Oregon law.

Dyllan Schawn Wright and Annie Maxine Wright

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 2020

Ride-through After BAPCPA Debtors have not expressly asked for a ruling that they qualify for ride-through. … The court continued: If the debtor qualifies for the exception, then it seems that the result would be the same as pre-BAPCPA ride-through.

State of Oregon v. Hansen

195 Or. 169 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 1952

The defendant argues that opportunity alone is not sufficient to establish guilt. This, of course, is true. … monoxide, the propositions being inseparable as far as evidence is concerned, the following clearly establish all of them.

Couey v. Atkins

Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2015

Because the court ultimately concluded that plaintiff did not qualify for review under that statute, it did not need to reach that issue. Id. II. ANALYSIS A.  Is plaintiff’s action moot? … Second, there are cases in which the analysis that does exist was clearly incorrect—that is, it finds no support in the text or the history of the relevant 486 Couey v.

Meritage Homeowners' Association v. The Bank of New York Mellon

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2024

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the promissory notes as prima facie evidence of the existence of a debt, they do not clearly establish the amount of the debt. … Even on the face of the notes, they give a value of the note qualified by “or so much thereof as may from time to time be owing under this Promissory Note.”

Meyer v. Mittal

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 28, 2025

Even if the ability to pay an attorney fee award was a consideration under the SCA, Meyer has not established that he would be unable to pay any fee award. … Leslie’s Poolmart, Incorporated, the court questioned whether similarly specific time entries qualified as block billing because they “include[d] several tasks, [but] they [were] extremely specific and include[d] discrete

Jensen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2023

As a result, “an ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only when his [or her] conclusion is clearly established by medical evidence.” … Therefore, at the “de minimis” step two, the medical evidence does not clearly establish that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a medically severe impairment.

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 2017

Here, the vehicles for which DCI made purchases at Les Schwab included both “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” and passenger automobiles. … Plaintiffs did not provide a depreciation schedule or other information sufficient to establish any entitlement to a deduction under IRC section 167.

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 2017

Here, the vehicles for which DCI made purchases at Les Schwab included both “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” and passenger automobiles. … Plaintiffs did not provide a depreciation schedule or other information sufficient to establish any entitlement to a deduction under IRC section 167.