Case law

Adan v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2024

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.” … Qualified Immunity Even assuming plaintiffs established a violation of their First or Fourth Amendment rights, summary judgment is warranted on the basis of qualified immunity

Jurgens v. Columbia County

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 20, 2025

Brown’s constitutional rights, based on the record before this Court, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the defendant “(1) violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct ‘was clearly established at the time.’”

Shaw v. Stewart

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2025

A defendant may still be immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity if "the law governing th[e] right is [not] clearly established[,]" i.e., if "it would [not] be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct … Qualified immunity shields an official sued in their personal capacity from damages in a civil suit so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Thornton v. Oregon Department of Corrections Health Services

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 28, 2023

Thornton’s “Motion to Dismiss Qualified Immunity” (ECF No. 36) and “Motion to Dismiss Defendants Immunity and the Affirmative Defense of Qualified Immunity” (ECF No. 54). … In their Answer, defendants assert affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and sovereign immunity.

Obataiye-Allah v. Steward

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2020

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 … Second, the court must decide whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct. Id.

Far West Federal Bank v. Director Office of Thrift Supervision

787 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 1992

The scope of the waiver, if not clearly defined in a contract or statute, must be determined by reference to underlying congressional policy. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. U.S. … I will not expand defendant’s waiver of immunity beyond the bounds established by Congress. Other courts have reached the same result. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v.

Oregon v. Bowen

682 F. Supp. 1111 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 1988

. § 1331 is limited by sovereign immunity. Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. Martin, 643 F.2d 1376, 1378 (9th Cir.1981). … Consequently, it is necessary to properly define the basis for jurisdiction and determine if sovereign immunity has been waived.

Columbia River People's Utility District v. Portland General Electric Co.

40 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 1999

PGE and PP & L raised a “state-action” immunity defense, arguing that the division of the Portland market was cloaked with antitrust immunity by the 1972 Order of the OPUC approving the agreement. Ill F.3d at 1436. … Midcal holds that the state-action doctrine cloaks anticompetitive conduct with antitrust immunity only if the state's intent to displace competition with regulation is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as

Laizure v. Washington County

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 7, 2021

Defendants appealed the Court’s opinion that Tran is not entitled to qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that Tran is entitled to qualified immunity on Laizure’s federal claims. See Laizure v. … App’x 576, 578 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Tran is entitled to qualified immunity on Laizure’s § 1983 claims.”).

Applegate v. Ritchie

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 12, 2024

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Additionally, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Whether qualified immunity can be invoked turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s acts.

White v. Taylor

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2020

Qualified Immunity Standards “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 … “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

Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2023

This Court further finds that the Individual-Capacity Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages . . . .” Wood v. … “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.

Williams v. Baskett

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity At oral argument, both sides raised the issue of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are protected from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Mead v. Gordon

583 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2008

clearly established. … Thus, this Court need not reach the question of whether Mead received adequate procedural protections nor does it decide whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

L.O.K v. Greater Albany Public School District 8J

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 28, 2022

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 … Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity protects an official from reasonable mistakes about the legality of his actions. Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2003).

Farr v. U.S. West, Inc.

815 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 30, 1992

This preemption clause is “deliberately expansive and designed to establish pension plan regulations as exclusively a federal concern.” Olson v. … held that, even if plaintiff *1363 could establish the existence of the program, it would nevertheless be preempted by ERISA because plaintiffs claim ultimately “related to” administration of the Plan.

Walton v. Laney

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2021

Even if Nofziger violated the due process clause, however, Nofziger is entitled to qualified immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages,” Wood v. … The Court finds, therefore, that Nofziger is entitled to qualified immunity.

Evans v. Myrick

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 18, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Ninth Circuit has noted that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

Tumac Lumber Co. v. United States

625 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 25, 1985

In establishing a DISC, an exporter would form a corporation under any state law, purchase $2,500 of its stock, open a bank account for the DISC and establish minimal books and records. … An assignment may be oral or written and no special form is necessary provided that the transfer is clearly intended as a present assignment of the interest held by the assignor.

Gold v. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation

478 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 1979

. § 477 , waived its immunity with the consent of Congress. Plaintiffs rely on Martinez v. … The Administrative Procedure Act obligates the BIA to follow the procedures established by Congress as well as those established by its own regulations and, if it fails to do it, a reviewing court can set aside agency action