Case law

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

Delker v. Maass

843 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 2, 1994

Qualified Immunity: Defendant Vargo asserts he is qualifiedly immune from liability because there are no cases clearly establishing an inmate’s constitutional right to surgical repair of an ordinary inguinal hernia. … The precise facts need not have been previously determined, so long as the legal principle is clearly established and a reasonable public official would realize that his conduct violated that rule of law. Anderson v.

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

Murrell v. Union Pacific Railroad

544 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 2008

This statement identifies three criteria that government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity. … The City has met its burden in establishing the affirmative defense of discretionary immunity. Therefore, defendant City’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Cars Northwest Inc. v. City of Gladstone

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity A. … Therefore, because the Individual Defendants were not contravening clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Byam v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 2019

Nor are Defendants entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the

Friar v. Jackson

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 19, 2023

“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. … right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.”

Kerr-Daly v. City of Eugene

District Court, D. Oregon · May 30, 2025

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.

Coleman v. Bay Area Health District

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 2020

Qualified immunity in this case depends on whether Ms. Davisson violated a clearly established constitutional right in her individual capacity as a manager. … Davisson made a decision that violated clearly established law, therefore she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Alexander

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 14, 2023

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 … right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.”

Bryant v. City of Toledo

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2024

Defendant asserts that Moore is a new case discussing qualified immunity, decided after the Judge Kasubhai’s issued his F&R, but six months before the Court adopted the F&R. … In Moore, the Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiff had not identified—and the court could not find—case law clearly establishing that a person has a First Amendment right to remain silent when

Martin v. Hermiston School District 8R

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 4, 2020

“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. … Turning to qualified immunity, the court held that the liberty interest created by the California statute was clearly established. Id. at 502.

Baker v. (Oregon Dept. of Corrections) O.D.O.C

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2019

Alternatively, defendants argue that Young 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. Pauly, 137 S.

Sizemore v. City of Dallas

443 F. Supp. 2d 1201 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 9, 2006

Finally, Harper contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity analysis proceeds in two stages. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for farther inquiries concerning qualified immunity. Id.

Tyvoll v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 2023

Defendant Damerville also objects to Judge Russo’s recommendation that summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim based on qualified immunity should be denied. ECF 69 at 7. … Nor can this Court, on the present evidentiary record, find that Defendant Damerville is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Peterson v. Mickles

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages.” Wood v. Moss, 134 S. … The doctrine provides immunity when the right asserted by a plaintiff was not clearly established or when the officials could have reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. Romero v.

Donald H. Hartvig, Inc. v. Kellas (In Re Kellas)

113 B.R. 673 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 1990

Both debtors established accounts in a pension plan created by US West (Plan), administered by a Contribution Plan Committee. … The statute referred specifically to ERISA qualified plans. The plan trustees argued the benefits were immune from garnishment under this statute.

Miller v. Washington County

650 F. Supp. 2d 1113 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 2009

immunity. … Similarly, I am unable to issue a ruling on the County’s alternative argument that Gordon is entitled to qualified immunity.

City of Lincoln v. United States Department of Interior

229 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2002

Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss Claims Seven and Eight on Basis of Tribal Immunity. … . *1114 Tribal immunity Indian tribes have been recognized, first by the European nations, later by the United States, as distinct, independent political entities, qualified to exercise self-government by reason of their

Gahr v. Marion County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2025

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.