Case law

Young v. State of Oregon

346 Or. 507 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

The question was not whether the county in Seton was obligated to pay such interest; it clearly was. … When the legislature waived state immunity for its torts and enacted the Oregon Tort Claims Act, it clearly assumed that the state would be liable for interest that accrued on unpaid judgments.

Lovell v. School District No. 13

172 Or. 500 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1943

VIII, § 3, of the Constitution of Oregon, it is the function of government to establish and maintain public schools. … Statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed and the intention to impose such liability must, therefore, be clearly expressed.

State v. Tucker

51 L.R.A. 246 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1900

The facts upon which it is founded illustrate very clearly the situation attending the present controversy. … Justice Lord, speaking for the court, says: “In a general sense, to ‘modify’ means to change or vary, to qualify or reduce; and unless there is something in the context, or special usage, the words are to be taken in their

Neher v. Chartier

319 Or. 417 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1994

This court’s case law throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries interpreting Article I, section 10, likewise has failed definitively to establish and consistently to apply any one theory regarding the protections … who are personally responsible for harm qualifying as a legal injury remain hable.

ANDERSON Ex Rel POE v. GLADDEN

205 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1955

Assuming but not conceding that the first affirmative reply stated only issuable facts and not conclusions of law, it is clearly insufficient. … They do not show that he was “present, qualified and able to sit” on 28 July 1932 when defendant was sentenced.

Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc.

356 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

We do not read the second sentence as establishing statutory immunity in that situation. … Because ORS 656.018 (2011) did not refer to both partners and directors, ORS 63.002(2) teaches that members and managers do not qualify for the immunity that ORS 656.018(3) (2011) extended to direc- tors.

State v. Clark

291 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1981

It also was early established that the guarantee reaches forbidden inequality in the administration of laws under delegated authority as well as in legislative enactments. White v. … Denial of immunity.

Libertarian Party of Oregon v. Roberts

305 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1988

The LPO asserts that the statutes are unconstitutional because the state has failed to establish the existence of countervailing state interests sufficient to justify the “burdens” placed upon these rights. … The LPO has not raised them and has not alleged that its candidates are qualified or could qualify for the ballot by methods other than minor-party recognition.

State v. Eby

296 Or. 63 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1983

When you gave immunity to Paul Bigornia, did you give him immunity for murder? “A. No. “Q. Did you give him immunity for robbery? “A. No. “Q. What did you give him immunity for? “A. … This case is clearly distinguishable from State v. Middleton, 295 Or 485 , 668 P2d 371 (1983). In Middleton , the fact that the witness took and passed a polygraph was admitted.

McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept.

366 Or. 452 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 2020

The Court of Appeals reversed, McCormick, 293 Or App at 201, relying on a case that it had issued the same day, land is privately held, as long as the water is ‘navigable in a qualified or limited sense.’ … That understanding of “permit” is supported by the context of ORS 105.682, specifically, by ORS 105.676, which establishes that the purpose of the rec- reational immunity statutes is to encourage owners to make their lands

State v. Shinkle

231 Or. 528 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1962

We begin with the established doctrine that the state of Oregon is not subject to suit except as the *530 legislature has otherwise provided. As we recently-noted in Vendrell v. … Article IV, § 24, Oregon Constitution, clearly ordains that where the action is brought against the state the negligence of the state’s servants will not be imputed to the state unless the legislative assembly *535 elects

Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University

359 Or. 168 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

Given our cases, it is difficult to describe Lakin as either “settled” or “well-established” precedent. … Plaintiff focuses her argument instead on the second independent clause, which is qualified by a dependant clause.

Baker v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp.

241 Or. 609 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1965

Justice Douglas the court,, in language important to the case before us, said: “* * * Hence, when Congress established such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial *615 and business transactions with the public, … It clearly follows that subjecting defendant to ORS 736.325 does not mean that it could otherwise be regulated by the General Insurance Law.

Gollnick v. Marvin

60 Or. 312 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1911

The material part of the statute rendering certain chattels immune from levy or sale, without the owner’s consent, are as follows: “The following property ■ shall be exempt from execution, if selected and reserved by the … It was incumbent upon the plaintiff herein to establish the fact by competent evidence that he habitually earned his living by farming, in which' occupation the use of the demanded horses was necessary. Dove v.

State v. Castrejon

317 Or. 202 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1993

supra, 313 Or at 40. 6 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, cited by defendant, provides in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … It is, however, well established that federal due process, applied to state criminal trials, contains such a requirement. State v.

E. J. T. v. Jefferson County

370 Or. 215 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2022

public body, through the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), when the claim is 1 As we recently explained, “ORS 124.100 provides for, among other things, increased damages and attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs who qualify … With respect to the immunity provision of the child-abuse-reporting statutes, the legislature has guaran- teed immunity to “[a]nyone participating in good faith in the making of a report of child abuse and who has reason-

Dunn v. University of Oregon

9 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1881

An agent of the state, whether incorporated or not, by virtue of his character simply, possesses no such immunity from being sued. … We think these propositions are clearly established by the authorities cited, and in our view of the questions presented by the transcript, they are decisive in the case before us.

In Re the Marriage of Crocker

332 Or. 42 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2001

Thus, it was established authoritatively and soon after its adoption that the coverage of the original statute extended only to married women who lived apart *52 from their husbands and otherwise were qualified to receive … The equal privileges and immunities clause scrutinizes benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular class, rather than discrimination against a particular class: “The original target of this constitutional

Wickman v. Housing Authority

196 Or. 100 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1952

These cases undoubtedly establish a national policy with reference to the non-immunization of national agencies and constitute a change in attitude toward them. … This state has never held ‘sue and be sued’ clauses established a waiver of immunity; its steadfast policy has been the exemption from liability of public corporations engaged in governmental duty, and the sub *117 mission

Landgraver v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board, Inc.

203 Or. 489 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1955

Notwithstanding the immunity rule, the expense of such extensive inquiry into the nature and character of the institution will have to be borne by the charity before immunity can be established. … The proviso clearly limits the church corporations to the charitable or church activities specified. It neither adopts nor rejects the immunity doctrine.