Cases

DECISION OF DISMISSAL This matter is before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Motion), filed April 9, 2010, requesting that the Complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff filed responses to Defendant's Motion on May 18, 2010, and May 28, 2010. Defendant filed a reply on May 26, 2010. For tax year 2009-10, the parties agree that Plaintiff failed to file a timely appeal with the board of property tax appeals (BOPTA). The

40 P.3d 535 (2002) 179 Or. App. 498 STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Wendell CUNNINGHAM, Appellant. C9903-32190; A107209 Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted June 29, 2001. Decided February 13, 2002. *536 Peter Gartlan, Chief Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellan

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER BETSCHART, on their No. 23-2270 behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOSHUA SHANE D.C. No. BARTLETT, on their behalf, and on 3:23-cv-01097-CL behalf of all others similarly situated; CALEB AIONA, on their behalf, and on behalf of all others OPINION similarly situated; TYRIK DAWKINS, on their behalf, and on behalf of all othe

954 F.2d 1470 Kim Clay OVIATT, By and Through his conservator, Sr. MariaFrancis WAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Fred PEARCE, Sheriff; Multnomah County, Defendants-Appellants.Kim Clay OVIATT, By and Through his conservator, Sr. MariaFrancis WAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Fred PEARCE, Sheriff; Multnomah County, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 90-35146, 90-35314. United States Court

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 25. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion, argument of counsel heard on August 1, 2013, and the remaining file. This case arises from a series of tragedies. It was filed by two men who were

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 27 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 28 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

767 F.Supp.2d 1069 (2011) David F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, Defendant. No. 1:07-CV-00026-OWW-DLB. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 24, 2011. *1077 Eugene David Lee, Law Office Eugene Lee, Los Angeles, CA, Joan Herrington, Bay Area Employment Law Office, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff. M

778 P.2d 1003 (1989) 98 Or.App. 346 MAIN STREET ASSET CORPORATION, an Oregon Corporation, Respondent, v. Bradley CUNNINGHAM, Appellant. No. 87 C 651213; CA A50614. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted June 12, 1989. Decided September 6, 1989. David Gernant, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appell

702 F.Supp.2d 40 (2010) Kenneth C. VARRICCHIO, Sr., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Nassau County Sheriff's Department, Nassau County District Attorney's Office, Thomas Amato & Desiree Laster, Defendants. No. 08-CV-4526 (JFB)(AKT). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 17, 2010. *45 Kenneth C. Varricchio, Sr., pr

678 F.Supp.2d 1082 (2009) Joachim PETROLINO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SPOKANE, et al., Defendants. No. CV-07-228-FVS. United States District Court, E.D. Washington. August 14, 2009. *1084 Gary R. Stenzel, Gary Stenzel Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff. Hugh Terrence Lackie, Heather C. Yakely, Evans Craven & Lackie

FARRIS, Circuit Judge; Rufus Cunningham, a peace officer for the California Department of Insurance, brought an action on a claim of false arrest and wrongful search against employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and the County. He prevailed in his action, although not on all grounds asserted in the complaint or against all defendants. He appeals: 1) the amount

FARRIS, Circuit Judge. Rufus Cunningham, a peace officer for the California Department of Insurance, brought an action on a claim of false arrest and wrongful search against employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the County. He prevailed in his action, although not on all grounds asserted in the complaint or against all defendants. He appeals: 1) the amount

138 P.3d 963 (2006) Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian; Peter Ilgenfritz and David Shull; Johanna Bender and Sherri Kokx; Janet Helson and Betty Lundquist; David Serkin-Poole and Michael Serkin-Poole; Vegavahini Subramaniam and Vaijayanthimala Nagarajan; Elizabeth Reis and Barbara Steele; and Michelle Esguerra; and Boo Torres De Esguera, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY; Ron Sims, King County Executive; and Dean Logan, King County Director of Recor

FARRIS, Circuit Judge: Rufus Cunningham, a peace officer for the California Department of Insurance, brought an action on a claim of false arrest and wrongful search against employees of *707 the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and the County. He prevailed in his action, although not on all g

Action by James T. Cunningham against Oregon Farmers Institute for personal injuries caused by alleged negligence of defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. AFFIRMED. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in an action for damages for personal injuries based on negligence. The defendant, appealing, has brought to this court only the pleadings and judgment, and asserts as sole ground for reversal that the complaint, hitherto unchallenged by motion, demurrer or otherwise

166 P.3d 1137 (2007) 214 Or. App. 473 Carley FRAKER and Carol Fraker, individually and as guardian ad litem for Kelsey Fraker, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BENTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Benton County Community Corrections, and Lincoln County Sheriff's Office, Defendants, and Debbie Marie Cottengim, Defendant-Respondent. 0010060; A125743. Court of Appeals of Oregon.</

Opinion by Judge FISHER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge O’SCANNLAIN OPINION FISHER, Circuit Judge. John Kenneth Lolli brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case against Orange County and a number of the Orange County Sheriffs Department officers challenging his treatment in the Orange County Men’s Jail in October 1999. He claims that the officers violated his federal constitution

351 F.3d 410 John Kenneth LOLLI, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California; Michael S. Carona, individually and as Sheriff of Orange County; John Rocky Hewitt, individually and in his official capacity (Assistant Sheriff); Toledo, individually and in his official capacity (Sheriff Sergeant) aka Doe 3; Meyer, individually and in his official capacity (Sheriff Sergeant) aka Doe 4; Walker, indiv

SERCOMBE, J., concurring. I concur with the result reached by the majority for different reasons. I agree that a Measure 37 waiver has no legal consequence after the enactment of Measure 49 and that a judicial decision about the validity of that waiver has no practical effect, except when the Measure 37 claimant “has a common law vested right * * * to complete the

459 P.2d 892 (1969) In the matter of the Compensation of Hiram S. CUNNINGHAM, Sr., Claimant. Hiram S. Cunningham, Sr., Respondent, v. STATE COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT, Appellant. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted September 16, 1969. Decided October 17, 1969. Earl M. Preston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the bri