Case law

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.

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.

Peterich v. Columbia County

District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2021

a clearly established constitutional right. … “Whether qualified immunity can be invoked turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the official’s acts.

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.

Douglas v. Young

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 29, 2025

At minimum, Defendant Sundquist 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.

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.

Doe v. Wright

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2023

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009)) (noting that a qualified immunity analysis may first address whether the asserted right was clearly established—particularly where “‘it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly … In a qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff “bears the burden of showing that the right at issue was clearly established.” Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).

Draper v. Astoria School District No. 1C

995 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 1998

Qualifíed Immunity The individual defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 claim. … Since defendants bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to qualified immunity, Collins v.

Bean v. Duarte

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2024

Defendant is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Even if Heck did not bar Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … “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

Laizure v. Washington County

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 18, 2019

A plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity by establishing that “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Because Deputy Tran’s arrest of Laizure violated clearly established law, Deputy Tran is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Berning v. Gooding

643 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 1986

The allegation that defendants caused the establishment of the saleable percentages as agreed without notice is also insufficient. … Since the Act was intended to eliminate such imbalances between supply and demand, the volume regulation recommendation provisions of the order have clearly failed. 50 Fed.Reg. 26997, 26998 (1985).

Perez v. Nooth

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 5, 2020

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because Plaintiff did not have a clearly established Eighth Amendment right to a cold-water decontamination shower at the time of the incident underlying this … Defendants move for summary judgment on both claims, arguing that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff’s right to a cold-water shower was not clearly established at the time of the incident in

Green Cross Dispensary, LLC v. City of Brownsville

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 22, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Romero v. … Despite this broad pronouncement, Elliot-Park does not clearly establish law that could defeat qualified immunity in this case. “[C]learly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.”

Hernandez v. Kidwell

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 9, 2022

that they are otherwise entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 person would have

Perez v. Capps

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 19, 2024

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue that Conway and Sigrah are entitled to qualified immunity.4 Qualified immunity shields an official sued in their personal … The qualified immunity analysis can be distilled into two elements: (1) whether the alleged conduct would violate a constitutional or statutory right; (2) whether the law clearly established, at the time of the conduct

Cascadia Wildlands v. Kitzhaber

911 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 19, 2012

It is well established that legislators are absolutely immune from civil suit for actions taken in their official lawmaking capacity. Bogan v. … The Ninth Circuit has formulated a four-step test to determine whether an act is legislative for the purposes of establishing absolute immunity.

Mendenhall v. Griner

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity In evaluating whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court considers whether (1) the state actor’s conduct violated a constitutional … The Ninth Circuit has held that this right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Castro, 833 F.3d at 1066–67; see also Harpole v. Bos., No. 2:22-CV-01033-HZ, 2023 WL 5806250, at *8 (D. Or.

THUNDERBIRD HOTELS, LLC v. City of Portland

670 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2009

Thunderbird contends that the hotel site “would not qualify for any exemption” either under the moratorium as originally enacted, or as later amended. … White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), and individuals seeking to establish such immunity bear the burden of establishing that it applies. Trevino v. Gates, 23 F.3d 1480 , 1482 (9th Cir.1994).

Olson v. Grant County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 22, 2023

Analysis This Court finds that Defendant Carpenter is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate “clearly established law” such that “every ‘ … Where a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified immunity, “[i]t is the plaintiff who bears the burden of showing the rights allegedly violated [are] clearly established.”

Rosa v. City of Newberg

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2020

not clearly established at the time of the incident. … The second step is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.