Case law

State Ex Rel Juvenile Department v. Tucker

76 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1985

The state does not argue persuasively that the experts did possess special knowledge of Indian life, but it contends that they were nevertheless qualified, because they had the necessary expertise to establish beyond a reasonable … However, when cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of Indian life.

Meyer v. State

292 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2018

immunity on those claims, because none of those rights were clearly established. … The right in question was clearly established at the relevant time. As a result, Niswender and Sugahara were not entitled to qualified immunity.

DeNucci v. Henningsen

248 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

of ORS 162.257 was not clearly established, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Despite the lack of probable cause for the arrest, however, Henningsen is still entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs right not to be arrested for her conduct was not “clearly established” at the time.

Scott v. Jackson County

244 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2011

Absent a violation of a ‘clearly established [constitutional] standard[ ],’ we need not discuss qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 US 194 , 208, 121 S Ct 2151 , 150 L Ed 2d 272 (2001).” 297 Fed. … This must be the initial inquiry. * * * “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Beason v. Harcleroad

105 Or. App. 376 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1991

Two types of official immunity are recognized in claims under section 1983: qualified and absolute. Qualified *382 immunity is the norm for state executive officials, such as prosecutors. … or qualified immunity.

State v. Berringer

234 Or. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 2010

In the motion to suppress, defendant argued that probable cause to arrest him dissipated once he showed the arresting Clackamas County deputy a document establishing that defendant, a California resident, was qualified to … The CCUA establishes (again, at most) rights between qualified California residents and the State of California — not the State of Oregon.

Fields v. City of Newport

326 Or. App. 764 · 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.

Canell v. State

185 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 27, 2002

high level of public authority; routine decisions that every employee must make, even when they require judgment, do not qualify for discretionary immunity). … Myers, 169 Or App 472, 478 , 10 P3d 265 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 692 (2001) (outlining what a plaintiff must demonstrate to establish negligence per se).

Harmon v. State of Oregon

320 Or. App. 406 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 2022

Finally, we note that, in its brief on appeal, in a footnote, the state argues that “even if OSH was not entitled to absolute immunity against plaintiff’s alle- gations, it was entitled to qualified immunity.” … But qualified immunity was not raised in the state’s motion for summary judgment and the state’s undeveloped qualified immunity argument on appeal likewise does not provide a basis to affirm. 412

Bush v. Paragon Property, Inc.

165 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 1, 2000

The Court held that the state officials did not have a federal right to prevail in advance of trial if their qualified immunity defense *705 were meritorious. … First, there is no particular reason that it is necessary to decide the issue of qualified immunity before trial in order to achieve the purpose of section 1983.

Tennyson v. Children's Services Division

93 Or. App. 366 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 1988

Qualified immunity protects conduct taken in good faith which does not violate clearly established constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about. Qualified immunity is the norm. Harlow v. … The burden of establishing absolute immunity is on the official seeking it. Butz v. Economou, 438 US 478, 506 , 98 S Ct 2894 , 57 L Ed 2d 895 (1978).

Martin v. Yunker

121 Or. App. 77 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1993

That rule provides: “(1) A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. “(2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission … The qualifier that “palpably unreasonable” conduct may give rise to liability is congruent with the common law notion that parental immunity extends to “ordinary negligence.” Cowgill, Adm’r v.

Fishermen Against Irresponsible Reallocation, Inc. v. Fish & Wildlife Commission

222 Or. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 24, 2008

for antitrust immunity, that premise is wrong. … Other governmental actors may establish *361 state policy for purposes of antitrust immunity through the rulemaking process. See, e.g., Bates v.

Landis v. Limbaugh

282 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 2016

RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY DEFENSE The first defense asks us to interpret Oregon’s recreational use statutes. To do so, we follow the framework of statutory construction established in PGE v. … That is, the legislature has provided that public, as well as private landowners may choose to make lands available and qualify for immunity.

Freeby v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc.

344 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2025

The appeal presents a single question: Does a ski area operator qualify for recre- ational use immunity despite charging a fee to use its ski lifts? … We are not bound by the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Washington law, and that case is not analogous to this one: an inner tube clearly would not qualify as “real property” under our defi- nition of “land.”

Turner v. State

270 Or. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 15, 2015

This statement identifies three criteria that a government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity. … City of Lake Oswego, 335 Or 19, 31 , 56 P3d 396 (2002) (“The burden is on the governmental defendant to establish its immunity.”).

Ramirez v. Hawaii T & S Enterprises, Inc.

179 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 2002

The city bears the burden of proving that it qualifies for this immunity. Stevenson v. State of Oregon, 290 Or 3, 15 , 619 P2d 247 (1980). … This statement identifies three criteria that a government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity.

Keeland v. Yamhill County

24 Or. App. 85 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 19, 1976

, he was not qualified in this case because he was not familiar with the Yamhill County jail. … ORS 30.265(2)(d). 2 * * * * "Each assignment of error shall be clearly and succinctly stated under a separate and appropriate heading.

Clardy v. Gangitano

334 Or. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2024

His declaration clearly establishes his actions as alleged in plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint were not outside the scope of his employment. … Gangitano stated that plaintiff’s property qualified as “abandoned” under the rule and was disposed of for that reason on May 1, 2020.

State v. Grabill

34 Or. App. 639 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 1978

Whether or not we have such authority has never been clearly established. See State v. Gaylor, 12 Or App 544 , 508 P2d 250 (1973). We need riot reach that issue here because the verdicts were logically consistent. … It cannot be said that the immunizing process allowed the state is directed at defendant’s strategic or tactical situation.