Case law

Oracle America, Inc. v. Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corp.

80 F. Supp. 3d 1168 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2015

the State waived sovereign immunity from the copyright claims in this action via the venue provision in the OHA OLSA. … sovereign immunity for the copyright claim in this Federal Action pursuant to the venue clause in the OHA OLSA.

Hancock v. Oregon Health And Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the official's conduct was not clearly established. Thompson v. … However, even if the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established, qualified immunity may still apply if a reasonable official could have believed his conduct was lawful. Id.

Jenkins

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 2, 2026

“In § 1983 actions, qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If a plaintiff either fails to show the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right or that the right was not clearly established, then the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Lacey v.

Maney v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are protected by qualified immunity because there exists no clearly established precedent on the appropriate constitutional … Qualified immunity requires “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (citation omitted); see also Rosenbaum v.

Foust v. Faust

District Court, D. Oregon · May 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.

Trusov v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2023

After that, “in the absence of binding precedent, [courts] look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state … As previously noted, qualified immunity is only an immunity from damages; it is not an immunity from declaratory or injunctive relief. L.A.

Ross

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 26, 2018

immunity because they did not violate Ross’ clearly established constitutional rights. … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right—when the officer should have known he was violating the Constitution— does he forfeit qualified immunity.”

Center for Legal Studies, Inc. v. Lindley

64 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 1999

Eleventh Amendment Immunity It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars citizens from bringing claims against a state or state agency in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress abrogates … Thus, plaintiffs also fail to establish an unlawful motive on behalf of defendants.

Alberto-Toledo v. Pulver

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 2022

; and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established.” … Because any alleged constitutional violation was not “clearly established,” Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. // 2 The Cruz court

Lee v. State of Or.

891 F. Supp. 1429 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 1995

Two of these statutes are more fully discussed in the text of this opinion: ORS 426.070 et seq., establishing the procedure for civil commitment, and ORS 677.095, establishing a physician's standard of care. 5 . … Measure 16's “Immunities and Liabilities” section provides in relevant part: § 4.01 Immunities Except as provided in Section 4.02: (1)No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary

Gold Medal LLC v. USA Track & Field

187 F. Supp. 3d 1219 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2016

First, Run Gum clearly seeks to capitalize on the unique nature of the Olympic brand generally, and the Olympic Trials in particular, in order to promote its product. … Here, however, we are not dealing with “limitless antitrust immunity.”

Dewberry v. Kulongoski

406 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 21, 2005

Upon remand, the Secretary reversed her previous determination and concluded that the Hatch Tract qualified as restored lands under IGRA. … waiver of immunity by the tribe or abrogation of tribal immunity by Congress.”)

Adams v. School Dist. No. 5 of Jackson County, Or.

699 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 27, 1988

The school board also moves the court for judgment in its favor on its defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Since summary judgment is appropriate on the defendant’s property and liberty *248 claims, the court need not address the issue of whether school board members are protected by the doctrine of qualified

Mol, Inc. v. Peoples Republic of Bangladesh

572 F. Supp. 79 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 1983

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., contains a provision forbidding United States courts from granting a default judgment against a foreign sovereign “unless the claimant establishes his … If I were allowed to consider the purpose of the activity, it would clearly indicate that the activity was based upon the “public interest” as perceived by the government of Bangladesh, to conserve wildlife and establish

Larson v. Carpenter

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, even under the line of cases recognizing this clearly established due process right, plaintiff cannot evade qualified immunity.

Burnard v. Oregon State Hospital

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 6, 2024

) does not violate clearly established federal rights. … However, government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Senn v. Smith

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 19, 2021

Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity protects an official from reasonable mistakes about the legality of his actions. Wilkins v. … of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court will consider whether that right was clearly established on October 12, 2016.

U S West Communications, Inc. v. MFS Intelenet, Inc.

35 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 1998

State immunity under the Eleventh Amendment extends to state agencies such as the PUC, and to state officials such as the defendant commissioners who act on the state’s behalf and who can assert a state’s sovereign immunity … Regardless of what other remedies U S West is seeking, it clearly seeks review of the Agreement as provided under the Act.

Eaton v. Blewett

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 24, 2024

Qualified immunity, however, is only an immunity from suit for damages, it is not an immunity from suit for declaratory or injunctive relief. See L.A. Police Protective League v. … After that, “in the absence of binding precedent, [courts] look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state

Morse v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2024

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas- Villegas v. … The Court finds, as a matter of law, that Chief Brown’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right and that his conduct is therefore protected under qualified immunity.