Cases

650 F.Supp.2d 1113 (2009) Jacob MILLER, Zachary Penor, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, Rob Gordon, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff, Defendants. Civil Case No. 06-1730-KI. United States District Court, D. Oregon. July 1, 2009. *1114 Leona

OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI Rebecca L. Miller and Carl F. Miller, Jr. (together, Millers) 1 petition, pro se, for re *921 view of the final Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington Cou

BROWN, C.J. ¶ 24. (concurring). I just want to make clear what we are holding and what we are not holding. We are holding that because the Union knew that Washington County was considering work force changes in order to cut costs — and specifically knew that the County had earlier issued layoff notices to five Union members (only to rescind them soon thereafter) — the Union was on notice that the County might t

PER CURIAM: Jose F. Reuter appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reuter v. Washington County Supervisors, No. 1:06-cv-00334-CCB (D.Md. Aug. 30, 2006). We further grant Reuter’s unopposed motion to dismiss Paul Theodoni, M.D., as a party t

Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

González, J. ¶1 This case presents a straightforward issue of appellate procedure. The question is whether the Court of Appeals erred by reviewing separate and distinct claims that had been resolved below and were not raised on appeal. The parties were not challenging the disposition of those claims, and thus, the claims had been finally adjudicated. The Court of Appeals nevertheless addressed the abandoned claims sua sponte and

KISTLER, J. John and Sharon Fritz petition for review of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision. They assert that LUBA erred when it remanded a Washington County decision that rejected Sprint PCS’s application to site a cell phone tower on exclusive farm use (EFU) land. We affirm LUBA’s decision as modified below. Sprint provides wireless telecommunication services. Having decided to improve its wireles

Quinn-Brintnall, J. ¶1 — In 2004, Clark County (County) designated the 19 land parcels at issue in this case as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance (ALLTCS).1 Despite identifying these parcels as having long-term commercial significance for the agricultural in*214dustry in the County, less than three years later, in 2007, t

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 01-2-00685-5, James B. Sawyer II, J., entered February 22, 2002. Remanded by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Houghton, JJ.

342 May 1, 2024 No. 280 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Jordan SCHWARTZ, an individual; Jonathan Moran, an individual; Serenity Vapors, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; Torched Illusions, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; Belal Yahya, an individual; and Hookah Cafe, LLC, dba King’s Hookah Lounge, a domestic limited liab

342 May 1, 2024 No. e280 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Jordan SCHWARTZ, an individual; Jonathan Moran, an individual; Serenity Vapors, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; Torched Illusions, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; Belal Yahya, an individual; and Hookah Cafe, LLC, dba King’s Hookah Lounge, a domestic limited liab

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER David L. Bunning, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2015, the Supreme Court put the national debate concerning same-sex marriage to bed. The Court determined that same-sex couples need not “await further legislation, litigation, and debate,” and held that the Constitution’s fundamental right to marry extended to same-sex coupl

This is an appeal from a Washington County Common Pleas Court judgment dismissing an action filed by Betty L. Miller, plaintiff below and appellant herein, against Washington State Community College, defendant below and appellee herein. Appellant assigns the following error: "WSCC is a political subdivision that may be sued in the court of common pleas. Thus, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint." On June 14, 1996, appellant filed the instant complaint agains

*982ante, p. 921; 534 U. S. 837; ante, p. 957; ante, p. 856; 535 U. S. 988; 535 U. S. 1035; ante, p. 266; 535 U. S. 1112; ante, p. 904; 535 U. S. 1113; ante, p. 940;

*982ante, p. 921; 534 U. S. 837; ante, p. 957; ante, p. 856; 535 U. S. 988; 535 U. S. 1035; ante, p. 266; 535 U. S. 1112; ante, p. 904; 535 U. S. 1113; ante, p. 940;

FILED MARCH 28, 2024 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, )

¶1 Thurston County (County) appeals a Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) decision that invalidated certain portions of the County’s comprehensive plan and development regulations. The Board, acting on 1000 Friends of Washington’s challenge to the County’s periodic review, found that the County failed to explain why its urban growth areas exceeded projected population growth by 38 percent, improperly designated agricultural land o

652 S.E.2d 580 (2007) IMERYS CLAYS, INC. et al. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS. No. A07A1135. Court of Appeals of Georgia. September 28, 2007. *581 Ragsdale, Beals, Seigler, Patterson & Gray, Herbert H. Gray III, Atlanta, David Kent Beals, for Appellant. Hulsey, Oliver & Mahar, Jane A. Range, Gainesvil

20 Argued and submitted March 14, 2019, reversed and remanded March 18, 2020 Timothy KELLEY, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, a domestic municipality, and Washington County Community Corrections Center, a subsidiary of a domestic municipality, Defendants-Respondents. Washi