Case law

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.

State v. Rodriguez

301 Or. App. 404 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2019

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, absent full immunity, I don’t think that that’s a proper—excuse me, but I don’t—absent full immunity, I don’t think he can be compelled to testify. … First, in briefing, and upon clarification at oral argument, the state does not argue that the immu- nity offered here for “driving crimes” qualifies as “transac- tional immunity” as required under Article I, section 12,

John v. City of Gresham

214 Or. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2007

Summary judgment based on discretionary immunity is appropriate only if the defendant establishes all of the elements of the defense as a matter of law. Sande v. … That decision, the court decided, was the one at issue and was a routine decision that did not qualify for discretionary immunity. 335 Or at 32-34 .

Advocates for School Trust Lands v. State of Oregon

346 Or. App. 668 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 2026

“Any interest may qualify as long as it is legally recognized,” id. at 555 (internal quotation marks omitted), and the interest may be affected indirectly—for example, an economic inter- est of a property owner may be affected … Plaintiffs assert that the schoolchildren plaintiffs have a qualifying interest in adequate funding for schools under the challenged laws pursuant to statutes that enti- tle and require them to attend school, ORS 339.010,

Box v. Oregon State Police

311 Or. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2021

We first address apparent authority immunity. B. … Further, the evidence establishes that Box did not, by custom or con- duct, manifest consent for the troopers’ entry apart from approaching the front door.

Cook v. State

197 Or. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 19, 2005

the requirements are established.” … The state contends that it enjoys immunity from plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; such immunity was the basis for the trial court’s dismissal of those claims.

Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University

206 Or. App. 610 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2006

OHSU was established in 1995 as an “independent public corporation”: 6 “Oregon Health and Science University is established as a public corporation and shall exercise and carry out all powers, rights and privileges that are … responsible for harm qualifying as a legal injury remain liable.

Westfall v. State ex rel. Oregon Department of Corrections

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

P2d 1027 (1990), the Supreme Court concluded that a deputy sheriffs decision to pursue a criminal suspect, who was driving a vehicle that struck the plaintiffs vehicle during the pursuit and injured the plaintiff, did not qualify … prior to delivery, to the superintendent of the [DOC] institution to which the defendant is initially assigned * * *. “(3) Upon receipt of the information described in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, [DOC] shall establish

Waggoner v. City of Woodburn

196 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2004

To effectuate that policy, ORS 105.682 establishes, as we have noted, immunity from tort liability for “any personal injury * * * that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes * * * when the owner of [the … If the legislature wished to deprive urban property holders of qualified immunity, it could have easily done so. It is not our role as a court to rewrite the plain language of a state statute.”).

State v. Soriano

68 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 13, 1984

The New York Court of Appeals stated this position clearly in People ex rel Hockley v. … falls short of that constitutionally-required minimum. 20 First of all, use and derivative use immunity does not clearly protect against non-evidentiary as well as evidentiary *663 use of the immunized testimony.

Neumann v. Liles

261 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 12, 2014

We take the same approach here, both to be consistent with Young and because the trial court’s determination that the online business review at issue qualifies as a protected activity under ORS 31.150(2) is not clearly erroneous … , or showing that he abused that qualified privilege.

State v. Savastano

243 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2011

. *588 The law governing standardless distribution of privileges and immunities under Article I, section 20, is well settled. … of a city ordinance, as opposed to a state law (the constitutionally significant privilege in Bruner), the privileges or immunities faced by defendant here are clearly of constitutional magnitude.

Mann v. McCullough

174 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 20, 2001

for immunity under ORS 30.265(3)(c). … “The burden is on the state to establish its immunity. In some instances, the nature of the function alone is sufficient to establish immunity.

Robinson v. Omark Industries, Inc.

46 Or. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 1980

Defendant alleged that workers’ compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy and that it was therefore immune from tort liability. … That does not establish that either was plaintiff’s only employer; it establishes that both were plaintiff’s employers.

State v. Capwell

64 Or. App. 710 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1983

The state argued that the circumstances surrounding the confession established that it was voluntarily given. … The court, however, found that, taken as a whole, the evidence established that the confession was induced by an implied promise of immunity from prosecution.

Neher v. Chartier

124 Or. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1993

responsible for harm qualifying as a legal injury remain liable. … Defendants counter that the protection of Article I, section 10, applies only to rights established at common law, see Stewart v.

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 *560 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

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,

Stedman v. Dept. of Forestry

316 Or. App. 203 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 2021

“(b) An all-terrain vehicle decal issued under this sec- tion must be permanently affixed to the vehicle and dis- played in a clearly visible manner. … Cite as 316 Or App 203 (2021) 207 “(5) The department shall establish by rule a fee for a permit issued or renewed under this section.

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