§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America v. City of Portland

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Venegas v. Mitchell

    495 U.S. 82 (1990)   Cited 331 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the party’s right to waive, settle, or negotiate the party’s entitlement to receive attorney’s fees

  2. San Jose Mercury News v. U.S. Dist. Court

    187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 802 times
    Holding that to gain a protective order the party must make "particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document"

  3. Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg

    268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 411 times
    Holding that the court is to take facts alleged in the pleadings, motion, and supporting declarations as true for purposes of the motion to intervene

  4. United States v. City of Los Angeles

    288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 255 times
    Holding that "mere[] differences in [litigation] strategy" are insufficient grounds to "justify intervention as a matter of right"

  5. Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Geithner

    644 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 158 times
    Stating that we review the denial of a motion for permissive intervention for abuse of discretion

  6. Venegas v. Skaggs

    867 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that a court may consider whether the proposed intervenor's interests are already adequately represented in exercising the court's discretion

  7. United States v. City of Hialeah

    140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 1998)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that a consent decree requires the consent of all parties whose legal rights will be affected

  8. Ahern v. Oregon Public Employees Union

    329 Or. 428 (Or. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Recognizing that ERB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an unfair labor practice has been committed under ORS 243.672

  9. Portland Police Ass'n v. City of Portland

    248 Or. App. 109 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that a provision of a collective bargaining agreement providing that "any disagreement" over wages "shall be subject to [arbitration]" unambiguously applied to a grievance over a change in the calculation of pension benefits

  10. Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 757 v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or.

    250 Or. App. 681 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    UP6205 A142045. 2012-06-27 AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, DIVISION 757, Petitioner Cross–Respondent, v. TRI–COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON, Respondent Cross–Petitioner. Susan L. Stoner argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner-cross-respondent. Keith M. Garza, Salem, argued the cause for respondent-cross-petitioner. On the brief was Jana Toran. ORTEGA Susan L. Stoner argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner-cross-respondent. Keith M. Garza, Salem, argued

  11. Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 41   Cited 107,294 times   195 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,044 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Rule 24 - Intervention

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 24   Cited 9,133 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them

  14. Section 14141 - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 14141   Cited 269 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing Attorney General to investigate and, if warranted, file civil litigation to eliminate a “pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives persons of right, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”

  15. Section 243.742 - Binding arbitration when strike prohibited

    ORS § 243.742   Cited 19 times

    (1) It is the public policy of the State of Oregon that where the right of employees to strike is by law prohibited, it is requisite to the high morale of such employees and the efficient operation of such departments to afford an alternate, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of labor disputes and to that end the provisions of ORS 240.060, 240.065, 240.080, 240.123, 243.650 to 243.809 and 341.290, providing for compulsory arbitration, shall be liberally construed. (2)

  16. Section 243.712 - Mediation upon failure to agree after 150-day period; impasse; final offer; fact-finding; effect of subsequent arbitration decision

    ORS § 243.712   Cited 18 times
    Prescribing notification requirement and assignment of mediator when bargaining reaches impasse

  17. Section 243.746 - Selection of arbitrator; arbitration procedure; last best offers; bases for findings and opinions; sharing arbitration costs

    ORS § 243.746   Cited 10 times
    Indicating ERB's role in receiving petitions for binding arbitration and selecting arbitrators

  18. Section 243.736 - Strikes by deputy district attorneys, assistant attorneys general and certain emergency and public safety personnel

    ORS § 243.736   Cited 6 times

    (1) It is unlawful for any of the following public employees to strike or recognize a picket line of a labor organization while in the performance of official duties: (a) Assistant attorneys general; (b) Deputy district attorneys; (c) Emergency communications worker; (d) Employee of the Oregon Youth Authority who has custody, control or supervision of adjudicated youths; (e) Firefighter; (f) Guard at a correctional institution or mental hospital; (g) Parole and probation officer who supervises adult