Case law

Kelly v. Hochberg

231 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2009

immunity under that statute. … According to defendant, the statute affords immunity to “recreational” uses, defined by reference to, among other things, hiking, which is a form of clearly recreational travel.

Fields v. City of Newport

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

We will not repeat the details of that here, other than to highlight that recreational immunity was established by the legisla- ture as a “quid pro quo” policy. Id. at 294. … ORS 105.688(1)(c) extends immunity to unim- proved, nonrecreational access trails that, under Liberty, would not have qualified for recreational immunity.

Kovac v. Crooked River Ranch Club & Maintenance Ass'n

186 Or. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 19, 2003

Those “CC&Rs” establish a homeowner association called the Crooked River Ranch Club and Maintenance Association (defendant). … We need not reach plaintiffs contentions that an agreement to delegate governmental standard-setting authority to a private entity violates Oregon’s antitrust statute and does not qualify for Noerr-Pennington immunity.

Brown v. Gatti

195 Or. App. 695 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 2004

Although we are unwilling to say categorically that an attorneys statements to the press can never qualify for absolute immunity, we can say with no hesitation that the statements here do not; they were not only made to the … can have no bearing on whether a clearly stated exception should be expanded beyond its text.

Hall v. Dotter

129 Or. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 1994

Defendants have the burden of establishing the defense of discretionary immunity. Stevenson v. State of Oregon, 290 Or. 3, 15 , 619 P.2d 247 (1980). … defendants may not be protected by discretionary immunity, only that defendants have not established that they are entitled to immunity under the principle stated in Praggastis , which is the only theory of immunity that

Libertarian Party v. Roberts

85 Or. App. 450 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1987

Political groups which qualify as minor political parties under ORS 248.008 and ORS 249.732 are entitled to nominate candidates for offices in the district or districts in which they are qualified and to have their nominees … ORS 249.740(1) (b) establishes a five percent petition requirement for unaligned candidates running for offices other than those enumerated in subsection (1)(a).

State v. Herrera

32 Or. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 1978

However, if the testimony offered by defendant is not sufficient to establish the defense of mental disease or defect, it is permissible to omit such an instruction. State v. … The statute clearly requires that defendant’s lack of capacity to conform be the result of a mental disease or defect. ORS 161.295. *407 State v.

Christianson v. State of Oregon

239 Or. App. 451 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2010

And finally, the lower court’s ruling that granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is unnecessary in light of our conclusion that, on the facts in the record, absolute immunity applies. … alleges facts that are sufficient to establish the defense.

City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters

20 Or. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1975

It includes requirements that collective bargaining take place on a broad range of issues; and creates the right to organize on the part of all public employes, a qualified right to strike on the part of all public employes … Clearly the 1973 labor relations legislation deals with many matters which are predominantly of local concern.

Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'LEARY

80 Or. App. 754 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 1986

The court listed “jury deliberations and court conferences” as two examples of judicial proceedings which could be held in private because of “well established * * * tradition.” 289 Or at 284 . … We apply Press-Enterprise II to determine whether there is a qualified right of access.

Page v. Sparling

87 Or. App. 118 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 1987

If it is a continuing non-decision which is in issue, then clearly the state has not met its burden to establish its immunity. … Both clearly are empirical questions.

Welch v. Bancorp Management Advisors, Inc.

57 Or. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

The court characterized thé operative rule as “application of a qualified privilege, with the burden of negating this qualified privilege placed upon plaintiff as part- of his affirmative case.” 287 Or at 371 . … Plaintiff urges that we adopt here the “primary motive” concept used to uphold qualified privilege in the context of defamation. See, e.g., Schafroth v.

State ex rel. Kashmir Corp. v. Schmidt

49 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 1980

We read this portion of the statute as qualifying an award of damages by making them available only and to the same extent as they would be available if the claim were tried as a separate action at law. … The petitioner does not challenge the basis of these findings. 6 Given these findings it is clear that the petitioner has failed to establish its case.

Rush v. Corvallis Sch. Dist. 509J

291 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 2018

Normally, a choice within the permissible range, in order to qualify for immunity, is one that has been made by a supervisor or policy-making body. … Applying those principles in Mosley , the court concluded that the district had established discretionary immunity as to the plaintiff's allegations that the defendant had failed to exercise proper supervision of students

Oregonians for Sound Economic Policy, Inc. v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

218 Or. App. 31 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 2008

it was clearly based on past conduct. … But it clearly reflects the punitive, rather than the remedial, nature of the fine that the court imposed.

Robbins v. City of Medford

284 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 29, 2017

Because discretionary immunity is an affirmative defense on which the city would have the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is “appropriate only if [the city] establishes all of the elements of the defense as a matter … We turn to our examination of whether, with respect to each of plaintiffs specifications of negligence and each element of the discretionary immunity defense, the city has established its entitlement to discretionary immunity

State v. Marshall

254 Or. App. 419 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 2013

Thus, Wilson’s testimony established that defendant, in giving his consent, actually relied on what he believed was a promise of immunity with respect to the contents of the RV. Further, that reliance was reasonable. … Wilson, a law enforcement officer, inserted a qualifying disclaimer in an official form at a citizen’s request.

McComb v. Tamlyn

173 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2001

On the other hand, a failure to recognize the need for that equipment under established criteria would not be immune. Id. at 14-15 . The court’s ruling in Stevenson illustrates the distinction. … As the Manual states, in a portion that plaintiffs expert quoted on cross-examination, “qualified engineers are needed to exercise engineering judgment inherent in the selection of traffic control devices.”

Hofer v. OHSU

328 Or. App. 352 · 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

Trabosh v. Washington County

140 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1996

Under that exception, if the partnership performs labor or services under a contract, it must qualify as an independent contractor under ORS 670.600 in order for its partners to be exempt. … It was also the way in which they normally charged other customers for hayrides; those other customers clearly did not have any right to control their performance.