Case law

HRSA-ILA Funds v. Adidas AG

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2024

Here, Adidas did not suggest that anything was “unfounded” or an “if,” and its disclosures clearly discussed mitigating an extant risk, even if at a high level of generality. … See zero-tolerance policy, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“An established plan or method of action stating that certain acts will not be permitted or condoned.”).

Osier v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 2020

At step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141–42; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & (f), 416.920(e) & (f). … Causeya completed this functional capacity assessment, the ALJ also clearly erred in concluding that “Dr. Causeya did not offer a function-by-function analysis of the claimant’s maximum functional capacity.”

Peter Szanto - Adversary Proceeding

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 18, 2020

I concluded that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 6 the counterclaims against Plaintiff based on sovereign immunity, there is 7 no right to a jury trial in a § 727 action, and Debtor’s refusal … Debtor 10 clearly knew that his bankruptcy schedules were not true and correct when 11 he testified at the Rule 341 meeting of creditors.

Mitchell v. Kruckenberg

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 27, 2024

Inventory reserves “are established to reflect situations in which cost of the inventory, principally stone slab remnants, is not expected to be recovered.” … I was not asked then to decide that Kruckenberg was immune from liability for the payments nominally made to Santiago.

Law v. Zemp

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2018

The companies initially sought to establish, through a declaration by Zemp’s business advisor, that Zemp had no personal ownership interest in any of the com- panies. … Thus, it appears to us that the authority to issue orders “that the judgment debtor might have made” is qualified by the phrase “that the circumstances of the case may require.”

Law v. Zemp

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2018

The companies initially sought to establish, through a declaration by Zemp’s business advisor, that Zemp had no personal ownership interest in any of the com- panies. … Thus, it appears to us that the authority to issue orders “that the judgment debtor might have made” is qualified by the phrase “that the circumstances of the case may require.”

Sams v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 22, 2022

The treatment record cited by the ALJ states that plaintiff informed his therapist that he was a reliable and a hard worker and that plaintiff qualified his statement by adding “when I can function.” (Tr. 368.) … Heydenrych’s opinion are credited-as- true, they establish that plaintiff is disabled because the vocational expert testified that someone who misses more than two days of work per month is unable to sustain competitive

Martell v. General Motors LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 7, 2021

Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act GM argues that Plaintiff’s UTPA claim does not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s specificity requirements and that Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing GM … Several clauses throughout the warranty addressing specific components of the vehicle or specific vehicle types clearly state that only defects caused by materials or workmanship are covered.

Lee Pacific Properties, Inc. v. Century Pacific Equity Corp.

272 Or. App. 607 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 29, 2015

A condition precedent is “one that must occur before liability arises on the promise that the condition qualifies.” Phoenix-Talent School Dist. # 4 v. … Nevertheless, HUD never clearly defined what submissions it deemed necessary.

Gaston v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 10, 2020

A witness explained that: The doctor that last qualified [Plaintiff] for adult foster care is now unable to explain why he did that. … A physical or mental impairment must be established by medical evidence of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings,” not just reported symptoms. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1521, 416.921.

Hickey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 22, 2022

Here, in contrast, the medical evidence establishes, as the ALJ accepted, that Brink does have difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace. … The ALJ explained clearly where she was departing from Dr. Buskirk’s and Dr. South’s opinions and what medical record evidence prompted her to do so.

D.B. v. G6 Hospitality LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 2023

Therefore, as G6 Defendants do not qualify as possessors under Oregon law, they did not owe Plaintiff a heightened duty of care based on a special relationship. See Bagley, 356 Or. at 563. b. … Therefore, construed as a whole, Plaintiff’s complaint provides sufficient allegations regarding her negligence claim clearly directed towards G6 Defendants.

Whalen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2022

Applicable Law The Ninth Circuit has “established a two-step analysis for determining the extent to which a claimant’s symptom testimony must be credited[.]” … explaining that “[a]n ALJ is not required to discuss evidence that is not significant or probative, and evidence relating to [the claimant’s] symptoms and limitations outside the alleged period of disability does not qualify

Deras v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 6, 2026

From 1941 through 1983, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classified social security benefits as excluded from gross income, without a clearly stated legal theory. … ORS 316.148 (1985) allowed an income tax credit for certain expenses paid “in order that the qualified individual is not placed or maintained in a nursing home unnecessarily.”

Norman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 20, 2022

See AR 25–28; see Lewis, 236 F.3d at 512 (explaining that when rejecting lay witness testimony, the ALJ need give only arguably germane reasons and need not clearly link his determination to those reasons). … The claimant bears the burden of establishing that she has a severe impairment at step two by providing medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512; 416.912.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 23, 2023

See Crocker and Crocker, 332 Or 42, 55, 22 P3d 759 (2001) (stating standard with respect to equal privileges and immunities and equal protection analysis); Jarvill v.City of Eugene, 289 Or 157, 613 P2d … Other longstanding cases establish a difference in use as an additional kind of “genuine difference” for Uniformity Clause purposes.

Jones v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 10, 2023

Because the ALJ found no impairment qualifying Plaintiff as disabled, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s RFC before moving to step four of the sequential analysis. AR 19-23. … The treatment records establish that Plaintiff attended counseling in part to strengthen her ability to develop healthy reciprocal relationships.

Frink v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2021

qualified to make psychological diagnoses has assessed the claimant.” Tr. 16. … However, it is well-established that “[a] decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are harmless.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).

Ross Dress For Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 8, 2021

In that case, the court stated that “Plaintiff has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the fair market value of the property in the condition which the defendant had covenanted to restore it … As discussed previously, this decision might have been otherwise had Ross presented persuasive evidence, probably in the form of two appraisals from qualified experts, comparing the fair market value of the Richmond Building

Silver Ridge Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 15, 2022

Defendant argues that these terms clearly convey to an ordinary person that water damage, including wind-driven rain, is excluded from coverage. 9 Defendant has challenged the overall credibility of Costa’s … Using that definition, the water damage to the building here does not qualify as a “specified cause of loss” under this exception to the Wear and Tear Exclusion because a roof is plainly not a “system or appliance