Cases

(2008) Freedom CHILD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND; et al., Defendants. Civil No. 05-1211-AS. United States District Court, D. Oregon. March 4, 2008. ORDER JONES, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Findings and Recommendation (# 60) on February 7, 2008, in the above-entitled case. The matter is now before me

661 Argued and submitted May 4; decision of Court of Appeals affirmed, judgment of circuit court vacated, and case remanded to circuit court for further proceedings November 4, 2021 Phillip E. OWEN, an individual; Owen Properties, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; and Michael L. Feves, an individual, Petiti

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE A pipeline operator challenges a local ordinance prohibiting loading crude oil onto tankers and the construction of new structures for that purpose on the grounds that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause and Foreign Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. A state or local statute can violate the dormant Commerce Clause if it (1) has an impermissible extraterritorial

LANDAU, J. The Portland City Code imposes a $35 tax on each resident of the city who is at least 18 years old, has income of $1,000 or more per year, and does not reside in a household that is at or below federal poverty guidelines. The funds generated by the tax are used to support public art and music education programs. Plaintiff, a city resident, argues

854 September 21, 2017 No. 49 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON George WITTEMYER, Petitioner on Review, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, Respondent on Review. (CC 130304234; CA A154844; SC S064205) On review from the Court of Appeals.* Argued and submitted March 6, 2017, at Lewis & Clark Law School,

HASELTON, S. J. Plaintiff, a resident of the City of Portland, brought this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Portland City Code (PCC) 5.73.020, which imposes a tax of $35 “on the income of each income-earning resident of the City of Portland” for support of the arts in the public schools (the Arts Tax)1, is a “poll or head tax” in violation of Article IX, section la, of the O

153 Submitted September 27, 2018, affirmed February 5, 2020 Robyn REISTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND BUREAU OF FIRE AND POLICE DISABILITY AND RETIREMENT, Respondent-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CV27777; A165110

OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: Roberta Miller appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for attorney’s fees. Miller sued the City of Portland (“Portland”) and three Portland police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted Fourth Amendment violations. Portland made a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (the “Rule 68 Offer” or “Offer”) for $1,000, plus

*404BREWER, J. Plaintiffs had been fire fighters for the city of Portland when they suffered disabling injuries. The charter for the city requires it to provide disability benefits to its police and fire employees who suffer injuries in the course of their employment that render them “unable to perform [their] required duties,” with a minimum disability benefit of 25 pe

WALTERS, J. The judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. *546 WALTERS, J. This case concerns the standing requirements for actions brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, ORS 28.010 to 28.160, an action t

544 November 3, 2016 No. 70 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON MT & M GAMING, INC., a Washington corporation, Petitioner on Review, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation, Respondent on Review. (CC 121114443; CA A154206; SC S063648)

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2025 ME 6 Docket: BCD-23-122 Argued: November 9, 2023 Decided: January 28, 2025 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ., and HUMPHREY, A.R.J.1 Majority: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ., and HUMPHREY, A.R.J. Dissent: DOUGLAS and LAWRENCE, JJ. ROBERT E. DUPUIS et al.

391 Argued and submitted October 5, 2021; dismissal of Moore plaintiffs’ First Claim, Count 2, for battery that occurred within the notice period reversed; dismissal of Demma’s First Claim, Count 2, for battery reversed; dismissal of Moore plaintiffs’ Second Claim for hostile work environment that occurred within the notice period reversed; dismissal of Conley’s Fourth Claim for dis- ability discrimination reversed; remanded for further proceedings; otherw

No. 509 September 27, 2023 391 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Joyce MOORE, an individual; Virginia Ferrer-Burgett, an individual; Cassie Gamez, an individual; Arline Weaver, an individual; Sarah Conley, an individual; Debra Meskimen, an individual; Angela Gonci, an individual;

270 F.Supp.2d 57 (2003) Sharon L. FORBIS, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PORTLAND, et al., Defendants No. CIV. 02-135-P-H. United States District Court, D. Maine. June 30, 2003. Daniel G. Lilley, Esq., Christian C. Foster, Esq., Daniel G. Lilley Law Offices, *58 P.A., Portland, for Sharon L. Forbis, Plaintiff. Mark E. Dunlap, Esq.,

165 P.3d 1177 (2007) 214 Or. App. 305 Lisa Ann JOHN, guardian ad litem for Michael Schlarp, a Minor Child, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GRESHAM and Multnomah County, Defendants-Respondents, and Shirley Jean Gepner, Department of Transportation, Tri-Met, Portland General Electric Company, and Metro, Defendants. 030809120; A128278. Court of Appeals of Oregon.

RUDMAN, J. [¶ 1] Charles Carroll appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superi- or Court (Cumberland County, Cole, J.) in favor of Scarborough Police Officer Joseph Giacomantonio on Carroll’s defamation claim. Carroll contends that the court erred in concluding that: (1) no genuine dispute of material fact existed; and (2) Giacomantonio was immune from liability under the Maine Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”), 14 M.R

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellants, past and present battalion chiefs in the City of Portland’s Fire Bureau, sued the city for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 (1994) (“FLSA”). Earlier proceedings resulted in a remand for reconsideration in light of Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997). The district court granted the City’s motion for summa

PER CURIAM [¶1] Rebecca J. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Waterville, Stanfill, J. ) terminating her parental rights to her child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(1) (2018). [¶2] In 2015, we prescribed a process by which a parent whose parental rights to a child were terminated following an evidentiary hearing cou

788 A.2d 183 (2002) 2002 ME 8 Sung Ying CHIU & Sio Tong Chiu o/b/o Gee Keung Chiu v. CITY OF PORTLAND et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: September 11, 2001. Decided: January 17, 2002. *185 John H. Rich III, Esq. (orally), Steven D. Wilson, Esq., Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley & Keddy, P.C