Cases

TAMM, Circuit Judge: The network non-duplication rules generally provide that a cable system located within a certain distance of a network-affiliated television station must delete the duplicative network programming of a distant station that is carried on the system. An exception to the rules, which is found in 47 C.F.R. § 76.92(g), is that a cable system-need not delete the programming of a television signal that is sig

HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Plaintiff Christopher Reaves brings this employment discrimination and tort action *1356against his former employer Lin Television Corporation (LIN-TV) as well as Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (Nexstar), a company that LIN-TV merged with after the events in this case occurred. Defendants move for summary judgment on t

FILED FOR PUBLICATION DEC 5 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD K. HOOKS, Regional Director No.

OPINION AND ORDER Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge Plaintiff, Doug Greisen (“Greisen”), is the former Chief of Police of Scappoose, Oregon. Greisen brought this lawsuit against Defendant Jon Hanken (“Hank-en”), the former City Manager for the City of Scappoose, and others. Before trial, the Court dismissed all defendants other than Hanken. From July 19, 2016 through July 21, 2016, this ac

EDMONDS, P. J., concurring. I concur with the majority’s reasoning and conclusions regarding defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge against him on statutory former jeopardy grounds and his motion to suppress his videotape on the ground that the affidavit in support of the motion for a search warrant did not establish probable cause that it contained records of drug transactions. I also concur with the res

DURHAM, J. The issue in this proceeding is whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney fees on appeal to defendant. Because the order awarding attorney fees lacks necessary findings to explain the legal and factual basis for the award, we vacate the order and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Plaintiff worked for defendant as a forklift operator. In August 1991, pla

957 P.2d 1200 (1998) 327 Or. 185 Terry B. McCARTHY, Petitioner on Review, v. OREGON FREEZE DRY, INC., an Oregon corporation, Respondent on Review. CC 93-0020; CA A87840; SC S43877. Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued and Submitted November 3, 1997. Decided April 23, 1998. Opinion Clarifying Decision on Reconsideration June 1

FILED 17-0065 12/20/2017 6:03 PM tex-21421836 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

GOLDEN, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Although I concur in this court’s affirmance of the trial court’s order denying Hustler’s motion to disqualify Spence’s *783counsel, I dissent to that part of the majority’s opinion which reverses the trial court’s order granting Hustler’s mot

378 F.Supp. 1312 (1974) Thomas CROSSMAN and Lucy Crossman, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. No. 72-215. United States District Court, D. Oregon. June 7, 1974. *1313 *1314 Lloyd B. Ericsson, Portland, Ore., for plaintiffs. William B. Borgeson, Asst. U. S. Atty., P

216 Or. 339 (1959) 339 P.2d 112 KELLER v. LONSDALE ET UX Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued December 18, 1958. Affirmed May 13, 1959. *341 E.B. Sahlstrom, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants. William M. Keller, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respond