Case law

Lyons v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 22, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that there is no genuine dispute of fact as to whether the non- supervisory defendants violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established right … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. G.

Harpole v. Boston

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2023

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to address two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established

Erwin v. Oregon Ex Rel. Kitzhaber

231 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 23, 2001

Erwin cites to O.R.S. 9.080 and O.R.S. 9.200 authorizing the Board of Governors to establish the Lawyers’ Liability Fund. … The record in this case establishes clearly that Erwin had the opportunity to litigate and in fact did litigate in the state court action the same claims and issues raised in this federal court action against the same parties

Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.

984 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 1998

Plaintiff in this case entered the qualifying school tournament and made it through the first and second stages. In the first two stages of the qualifying tournament, players are permitted to use golf carts. … For instance, a facility that specializes in hosting wedding receptions and private parties may be open only to invitees of the bride and groom, yet it clearly qualifies as a public accommodation.

Foust

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2026

Alternatively, Defendants are 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.

McCrae v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 28, 2023

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court considers two questions: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the … The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims because Plaintiff has failed to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 1.

Odom v. Russ

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can shield a defendant from liability for an alleged constitutional violation. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … ; and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established.”

Miculka v. American Mail Line, Ltd.

229 F. Supp. 665 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 21, 1964

Clearly, nothing in the Court’s language indicates any notice or acknowl-edgement of a prior contrary ruling or holding by the Court, let alone an express overruling and discarding of prior rule or law. *668 However, assuming … effect of overruling decisions, which are in and of their language silent as to effect and wash, is pointedly delineated by the dissent to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon where the long-standing, judicially-established

Brady v. Portland State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 23, 2019

Government officials performing discretionary functions receive qualified immunity from civil liability for damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, in order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the public official’s conduct was “unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 28, 2023

Where a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified immunity, “[i]t is the plaintiff who bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated [are] clearly established.” … Finally, in determining whether qualified immunity applies to a given case, a court may consider whether the rights were clearly established before deciding whether the right was violated at all.

Herrera-Welker

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 1, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from Section 1983 liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … and Recommendation — Page 6 clearly established at the time.

King v. Rangel

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2020

No 1 Defendants also maintain that Rangel is entitled to qualified immunity because the return address on the letter simply stated “ACLU Oregon” and did not indicate the letter was from an attorney. See White v. … Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam) (“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.”); Or.

Geiger v. Kitzhaber

994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 19, 2014

The state’s marriage laws clearly were meant to, and indeed accomplished the goal of, preventing same-gender couples from marrying. … of marriage, where the couple would be otherwise qualified to marry under Oregon law.

Bong v. White

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 4, 2025

to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff does not, and indeed cannot, point to any clearly established authority holding government attorneys liable merely for defending state actors or agencies in civil litigation.

Gardner v. Brady

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2020

Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff cannot establish a violation of his constitutional rights, and alternatively, that they are 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. Pauly, 137 S.

Wade v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 6, 2025

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

A.F. v. Evans

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2021

clearly established at the time. … Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity protects an official from reasonable mistakes about the legality of his actions. Wilkins v.

Pooler

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2026

an argument about qualified immunity. … In deciding whether to address the issue of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, “[i]f the operative complaint ‘contains even one allegation of a harmful act that would constitute a violation of a clearly established

Carmona-Perez v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2023

Thus, this Court turns to the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. b. … granting qualified immunity.

Pacificorp v. Portland General Electric Co.

770 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 3, 1991

Columbia argues that the doctrine of state action does not immunize PGE from federal antitrust liability because the State of Oregon has not clearly articulated a policy to displace competition for electric service customers … Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 , 100 S.Ct. 937, 943 , 63 L.Ed.2d 233 (1980), the Court explained that its decisions “establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown.