Case law

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.

Golden v. Smith

324 F. Supp. 727 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 1971

On November 6, 1969, Miss Wright, the mother of the child, filed a petition under the new statute to establish paternity and to provide for child support. … Here, District Judge Karaman did not know he lacked jurisdiction; he is therefore immune.

Jackson v. Gill

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 15, 2021

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … Without these facts, the EPD Officers could not have known they were violating a clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Macias

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2026

Qualified Immunity The State Defendants and Defendant Roberts contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. … 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

Watts v. Novak

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 5, 2024

Applicable Law Regarding Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Second, the Court asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.

Griffin v. Asla

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity for Individual Police Officers A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity against § 1983 claims if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the right at issue was clearly established at the time.

Oregon Ex Rel. Roberts v. Mushroom King, Inc.

77 B.R. 813 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 1987

In this case, the legislature established the Fund and appropriated money for it. … Under almost all of the DeLong criteria, the plaintiff here qualifies as an arm of the state government and not a citizen under the diversity statute by virtue of the sovereign immunity granted under the eleventh amendment

Emery v. Nooth

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 18, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants also raise qualified immunity as grounds for dismissal of all claims. Defs.’ Mot. 14–16. … ; and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established.”

Walsh v. King

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 2020

Qualified Immunity Government officials may be entitled to qualified immunity for claims brought under § 1983. … As briefly described above, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Gray v. Seterus, Inc.

233 F. Supp. 3d 865 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 2017

When the Grays originally secured this loan, they used Norman’s brother (Howard Gray) as a cosigner in order to qualify. … A disparate impact claim can be made when the regulation or policy, or its implementation, is clearly ' discriminatory across one or more classes. 24 C.F.R. § ,100.500.

Westwood v. City of Hermiston

787 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 15, 2011

Qualified immunity of Chief Coulombe. … Defendants assert Chief Coulombe is entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims because “there is no evidence to suggest that he acted in violation of any clearly established law.”

Prasnikar v. Our Savior's Lutheran Church

79 F. Supp. 3d 1184 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 2015

Veerkamp to establish an employer-employee relationship. B. General Agency Theory of Vicarious Liability Ms. … The Congregation argues that this establishes that the common law of Oregon in 1857 would have accepted the doctrine of charitable immunity as a bar to Ms. Prasnikar’s claim. I agree.

Wood v. Oregon Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2019

Finally, I agree that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages. … “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.

Fonseca v. City of Medford

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 2, 2025

Rather, the court found that for purposes of qualified immunity, a First Amendment right to impersonate a first responder and enter a restricted accident scene to take photographs was not clearly established in 2010. … A reporter’s right of access, even if qualified, is a right that is clearly established under First Amendment precedent.

Foust v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Because it was clearly established that gratuitous invasions of privacy violate the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

DePaul Industries v. City of Eugene

District Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2020

Qualified immunity depends on whether an official violated a clearly established constitutional right. Kramer v. … Miller violated clearly established law, Mr. Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity. II. Due Process Mr.

Vaughn v. Klamath County Fire District No.1

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 2025

Qualified immunity At the crux of Defendants’ motion for JMOL is the argument that the Estate has failed to show that Engler and Dustin are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Page 8 — Opinion and Order A plaintiff attempting to overcome the presumption of qualified immunity must first show □□□ constitutional right was clearly established. Gasho v.

Ortega Gonsalez v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 12, 2020

Qualified Immunity Nor does the alleged conduct rise to a constitutional violation, or a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus entitling Defendants to qualified immunity on this claim. … Alternatively, assuming a constitutional or statutory right has been violated, the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the Incident and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard

Brown v. Lane County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 5, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are 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

Galicia v. Crawford

294 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2003

Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 , 112 S.Ct. 1011 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992) (no explicit waiver of federal government’s sovereign immunity); Gregory v. … Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 , 105 S.Ct. 3142 , 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (no explicit waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)).