Case law

Ortega v. Martin

293 Or. App. 180 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2018

2007). 3 The state's theory, generally stated, was that plaintiff's injuries arose out of his recreational use, allowed by the state, of either the ocean or the "ocean shore," as defined in ORS 390.605(2), both of which qualified … Thus, under Landis , the state still would not have established its entitlement to recreational immunity.

Pre-Hospital Medical Services, Inc. v. Malheur County

134 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 1995

In its first assignment, plaintiff argues that the court erred in concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the claims under 42 USC sections 1983 and 1988. … Forsyth, 472 US 511, 526 , 105 S Ct 2806 , *495 86 L Ed 2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Weatherford v. County of Klamath

201 Or. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2005

discretionary immunity where evidence did not establish that an earlier *608 policy judgment actually governed the acts and omissions at issue); see also Mosley v. … for discretionary immunity).

Ortega v. Port of Portland

147 Or. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1997

The State is clearly immune from suits in personam brought under the general *496 maritime law without its consent. Ex parte [State of New York, No. 1.] … The former has traditionally recognized state sovereign immunity, and the latter embodies a qualified waiver of that immunity.

Johnson v. Brown

193 Or. App. 375 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2004

Deschutes County fired him after an investigation established that he had engaged in work-related misconduct. … from liability for acts of its employees where the employees are immune from liability).

Brasel v. Children's Services Division

56 Or. App. 559 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1982

The burden is on the state to establish its immunity, either by (1) the nature of the function, or (2) evidence of how the decision was made. 290 Or at 15 . … We conclude, therefore, that the state may not, in this case, establish its claim of discretionary authority at the pleading stage.

State v. Graves

58 Or. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 1982

A hearing was held on the motion, at which time the district attorney informed the court that defendant did not qualify for diversion. The court denied the motion. … That evidence clearly provided a reason to suspect that he was drug-dependent. Defendant was entitled to evaluation.

Egner v. City of Portland

103 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 1990

State of Oregon, 290 Or 3 , 619 P2d 247 (1980), the evidence in the summary judgment proceeding does not establish that Coleman followed the policy. 3 No one performed a pedestrian count, as required by the policy, to determine … In the absence of a showing of contrary legislative intent, the brief visual inspection that Coleman performed would not qualify as a “study.”

Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District

146 Or. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1997

To the contrary, the evidence established that the Board of Directors, as well as Mr. … Normally, a choice within the permissible range, in order to qualify for immunity, is one that has been made by a supervisor or a policy-making body.” Mosley, 315 Or at 92 (citations omitted).

Kane v. League of Oregon Cities

66 Or. App. 836 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 1984

Plaintiff contends that the announcement was an offer which he accepted by being the best qualified candidate to apply for the award. … Acceptance of the application and fee constituted acceptance of an offer to apply under the criteria defendant had established.” 69 Ill 2d at 330.

Dept. of Human Services v. F. T. R.

306 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2020

of use immunity. … On this record, mother has not established that the ordered psychological evaluation was so clearly incriminating in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights that it was impermissible in the absence of a blanket grant of use

Gunn v. Lane County

173 Or. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2001

See Tanner, 157 Or App at 521-23 (discussing the different levels of scrutiny applied to statutes once true classes are established). … The legislature reasonably could conclude that extending immunity to government employees is necessary to ensure that qualified persons will work for the government.

State v. Jacob

125 Or. App. 643 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 1994

Defendant moved to compel the state to grant immunity to the witnesses, which the court denied. … On the other hand, the same words spoken under different circumstances, e.g., to an acquaintance, would have no difficulty in qualifying.”

Matter of Marriage of Crocker

157 Or. App. 651 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1998

Father is a member of a disfavored class of parents who are denied that immunity, so he unquestionably is someone who can challenge the grant of that immunity. … Because the focus of father’s arguments on appeal is on the immunity from court-ordered support that is given to married parents but denied to divorced or separated parents, we will focus on that immunity as well.

Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C

313 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 2021

The district alleged that, because its employees were immune from liability by virtue of the privilege, the district was immune as well. … A qualified privilege does not act as a complete bar to liability but requires that the plain- tiff prove that the defendant abused the privilege as a condi- tion of establishing liability. Bank of Oregon v.

Scovill v. City of Astoria

129 Or. App. 240 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 1994

The complaint does not disclose on its face that all elements necessary to establish immunity are present. See McBride v. Magnuson, 282 Or 433 , 578 P2d 1259 (1978). … Whether or not the city is correct about that, it has the burden of establishing the immunity defense.

Preble v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 287

298 Or. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2019

Any departure from that waiver, defendant argues, must be clearly stated in the wording of a statute. ORS 656.019(2)(a) says nothing about waiving sovereign immunity. … As a rule, defendant contends, waivers of sovereign immunity *48 may not be implied, but must be clearly stated in the terms of a statute.

Griffin v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Product Liability Trust

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

In response, and in addition to the evidence set out above, plaintiffs attorney submitted an ORCP 47 E affidavit 2 averring that he had “retained unnamed expert witnesses who are qualified, willing and available to testify … We *146 decline to extend the raw material supplier doctrine articulated in Hoyt to immunize Union Carbide from potential liability. Reversed and remanded.

Tubra v. Cooke

233 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 27, 2010

qualified privilege. … Unlike a situation where the Free Exercise Clause provides immunity from suit, cf. Mitchell v.

Carey v. Siepmann

316 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

establish abuse of the privilege. … three opportunities to allege facts in their complaint sufficient to establish a claim but were unable to do so,” and plaintiffs have not assigned error to that ruling.