Case law

Buchler v. State Ex Rel. Oregon Corrections Division

104 Or. App. 547 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 12, 1990

The state has the burden to establish immunity. Little v. Wimmer, 303 Or 580, 588 , 739 P2d 564 (1987). After this case was argued, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Lowrimore v. … A traffic officer’s decision to pursue a vehicle * * *, [although discretionary in the sense that it involves the exercise of judgment and choice by the officer, is not one that qualifies its maker to immunity under ORS 30.265

Hofer v. OHSU

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

But OHSU did not raise qualified privilege in its summary judgment motion, and its reference to qualified privilege in this court is factually and legally underdeveloped and does not provide a basis to affirm. … State of Oregon, 320 Or App 406, 410 n 4, 514 P3d 1131 (2022) (explaining that qualified immunity had not been raised in the state’s motion for summary judgment and that the state’s undeveloped qualified immunity argument

Strader v. Grange Mutual Insurance

179 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2002

That certificate demonstrates that defendant has satisfied the Director that it qualifies for the exemption from the Insurance Code. ORS 731.042(3). … A review of the evidence clearly shows that the parties did not agree upon the amount in dispute.” Defendant might also have cited Dale’s Sand & Gravel v.

Cato v. Alcoa-Reynolds Metals Co.

210 Or. App. 721 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 2007

But it does establish that they had done so for a least one year before the onset of Sworden’s bladder cancer. The record also establishes that Sworden and Cato had a son as a result of their relationship. … It clearly impliefs] that benefits would ordinarily cease when a child other than an invalid dependent child reache [s] age 18.

Ag West Supply v. Hall

126 Or. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 1994

The amendments also include an exemption from the gallonage requirements: “Any person who was a customer of a facility that is issued a license under ORS 480.350 and was a customer on and since June 30, 1991, and who qualifies … The plaintiffs, a Vietnam veteran and his wife who had established residence in New Mexico in 1981, challenged the law as a violation of their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Smith v. Airbnb, Inc.

316 Or. App. 378 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

Airbnb moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other points, that under CDA 230, “Airbnb cannot be held liable for the content, or lack of content, on defendant Dennis’s listing, as a matter of established law.” … service qualifying for CDA immunity is an online messag- ing board (or bulletin board) on which Internet subscribers post comments and respond to comments posted by others.” Dyroff v.

Bruner v. Josephine County

240 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

See Friends of Yamhill County, 237 Or App at 177-78 (explaining the relevant factors used to establish a “common law vested right” under section 5(3) of Measure 49). … Whether zoning permissions have ripened to a degree sufficient to immunize the use from regulatory controls is tested by the “common law vested right” doctrine referenced in section 5(3) of Measure 49.

Baugh v. Maintenance & MacHine Erectors, Inc.

157 Or. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

ORS 656.855 charges the director of DCBS with the task of establishing a licensing system for worker leasing companies. … Moreover, if a worker leasing company provides both leased workers and workers on a temporary basis, it must also maintain payroll records that show specifically which workers are provided on a temporary basis, thus clearly

Anselmo v. Target Corp.

340 Or. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 2025

of the party’s attorney stating that an unnamed qualified expert has been retained who is available and willing to testify to admissible facts or opinions creating a question of fact will be deemed sufficient … Miller, 196 Or App 354, 358, 103 P3d 112 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 488 (2005) (“The inference need not inevitably follow from the established facts; rather, if the established facts support multiple reasonable infer- ences,

Comley v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board

35 Or. App. 465 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 1978

Johnson’s affidavit is taken as established fact and, because there is no material issue of fact as to his alleged negligence, summary judgment as to Dr. Johnson was proper. … immunity.

Griffin v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORP. TRUST

240 Or. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Union Carbide contended nonetheless that plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his exposure to asbestos and Union Carbide asbestos fibers. … We decline to extend the raw material supplier doctrine articulated in Hoyt to immunize Union Carbide from potential liability. Reversed and remanded.

Smejkal v. STATE EX REL. DAS.

239 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2010

Statutory obligations of governments can become contractual in nature when the statute clearly announces that the obligation is immune from statutory change. The court observed in Campbell et al. v. … It is also equally well established that the intention of the legislature thus to create contractual obligations, resulting in extinguishment to a certain extent of governmental powers, must clearly and unmistakably appear

Boise Cascade Corp. v. State Board of Forestry

164 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1999

The form of the remedy did not qualify the right. It rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory recognition was not necessary. A promise to pay was not necessary. … Congress has the authority to subject it to suit in federal court. 9 “9 The Solicitor General urges that the prohibitory nature of the Fifth Amendment * * * combined with principles of sovereign immunity, establishes that

Espinosa v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

50 Or. App. 561 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1981

case arose, one of which removed a comma, entirely changing the meaning of the statutory language relied upon in Vendrell, 13 We have no need to determine whether this change was significant, because the Tort Claims Act clearly … Criticism of the testimony given by the train crew and of our report of it, even though the criticism is so meritorious that it entirely obliterates the crew’s testimony, does not establish that the crew did not maintain

State v. Davis

237 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 2010

A well-established and unambiguous body of Supreme Court precedent establishes the framework for adjudicating the Article I, section 20, issue in this case. … A state agency director presented with more qualified applicants than positions could hire only white people because there is no law that entitles a qualified applicant to a scarce employment opportunity.

Walker v. Mitchell

133 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1995

” immunity. … Accordingly, we cannot agree with the trial court that, on this record, the division’s decision to approve and register the *576 Flying M Ranch as a personal use airport qualified for discretionary function immunity.

Allison v. Washington County

24 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1976

The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of sovereign immunity. … The facts were established by the pleadings.

Westfall v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORR.

247 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2011

1027 (1990), the Supreme Court concluded that a deputy sheriff's decision to pursue a criminal suspect, who was driving a vehicle that struck the plaintiff's vehicle during the pursuit and injured the plaintiff, did not qualify … for immunity from tort liability under ORS 30.265(3)(c).

Westfall v. State

266 Or. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 2014

He contends that Oregon courts have not “clearly decided” whether discretionary immunity should apply to intentional torts and, distinguishing the cases on which the department relied, contends that “[a]t best *** discretionary … Thus, because plaintiff cannot challenge the propriety of the PTA’s calculation of his release date, he cannot establish, as he must to prevail on his false-imprisonment claim, that the department “intentionally kept [him

Mesch v. Unity Center for Behavioral Health

349 Or. App. 463 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2026

Here, because defendants would have had the burden to establish their defense of statutory immunity at trial, see, e.g., Franke v. … Did defendants establish ORS 426.335(5) immunity as a matter of law? 1. The legal standard set by ORS 426.335(5).