Case law

Nemo v. City of Portland

910 F. Supp. 491 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 12, 1995

entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions. … Although the qualified immunity and good faith defenses are quite similar, “[bjeneath the nomenclature lie considerations of substance.” Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 173 , 112 S.Ct. at 1836 (J. Kennedy, concurring).

Harrington v. City of Portland

677 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 23, 1987

claim should be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Mayor Clark’s motion to dismiss Harrington’s claims based on qualified immunity is denied.

Gomez v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims because it was not clearly established that providing a hot—rather … “The doctrine of 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

Sitbon v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 23, 2025

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 … Moreover, the qualified immunity analysis looks to law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged rights violation. See, e.g., Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 970.

In Re Reid

6 F. Supp. 800 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 3, 1934

Clearly the limitation “within .Canada” indicates an intention to permit the minor to resume his native allegiance in the country of his birth. … Reid, therefore, from claiming the privileges and immunities with which she was invested by common law, and by the express terms of the amendment.

Jama v. Ball

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2025

Ball is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v.

Pettibone v. Biden, Jr.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 2021

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 … The law was therefore clearly established with respect to less lethal munitions and qualified immunity is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings. iv.

Meshell v. Steward

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants alternatively argue they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Meshell’s claims. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

State of Or. v. City of Rajneeshpuram

598 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 1984

State of Oregon brought this declaratory judgment action against defendants in state court, seeking a declaration that the incorporation, existence, and operation of the City of Rajneeshpuram is unconstitutional under the Establishment … Clearly the eleventh amendment bars defendants from proceeding against the State of Oregon unless an exception to the eleventh amendment exists or unless the State of Oregon has waived its eleventh amendment immunity.

Ewing v. City of Toledo

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ third objection asserts that Judge Kasubhai incorrectly concluded that defendants should not be granted qualified immunity. … First Amendment rights” was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s termination.

Reyes

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 2026

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity, the court evaluates, in no particular order, whether: (1) the alleged misconduct violated a right; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Kahl v. Multnomah County

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officials for mistakes of fact as well as of law. … Thus, even when a right is clearly established, an official may be entitled to qualified immunity because the full contours of the right in the circumstances faced by the official were unclear. Kennedy v.

Sawyer v. Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 21, 2020

summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, because “there was no clearly established legal precedent showing that either taking I.S. into protective custody under the appurtenant facts was not constitutionally-sufficient … On a second appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the detective was entitled to qualified immunity, in part because “no clearly established law existed to guide [the d]etective[,]” where “[h]e was confronted with a physician

Alba v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … When analyzing a qualified-immunity question, the court applies a two-step process.

Biberdorf v. Oregon

243 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2002

To qualify for discretionary immunity under ORS S0.265(3)(c), the city must show that it made a decision “involving the making of policy” as opposed to a “routine decisionf ] made by employees in the course of their day-to-day … The burden is on the governmental defendant to establish its immunity. Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswego, 335 Or. 19, 31 , 56 P.3d 396, 403 (2002) (citations omitted).

Samson v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2024

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity, even if they violate an individual's constitutional rights, 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.

Brower v. Powell

District Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2020

If there were a constitutional violation, a government official may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

947 F. Supp. 1387 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 1996

Even if the proponents meet their burden of establishing that an expert’s testimony qualifies as scientific knowledge, the court must still exclude the evidence if it does not “fit” the matters at issue in the case. … Clearly these results bear on the matter at hand. Whether or not a masters thesis constitutes a peer-reviewed publication is clearly a matter of debate.

Applegate v. Baines

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 4, 2025

“[I]n 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 courts, other … Given all of the clearly established caselaw, the Court rejects Defendants’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.

Thomason v. Kitzhaber

217 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 2, 2002

Puerini is entitled to qualified immunity. *1115 1. Claim Preclusion Defendants contend that plaintiffs present complaint is precluded by earlier state court litigation. … Because of this disposition, I decline to address defendants’ qualified immunity argument. CONCLUSION Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (# 32) is GRANTED.