Case law

Hunt v. City of Portland

726 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 2010

The court then dismissed the claim based on qualified immunity and the fact that the constitutional violation was not sufficiently clearly established at the time the violation occurred. Id. at 1016 . … The Second Circuit only noted that this was an issue of first impression in the courts and that, as a result, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Fierro v.

Morse v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2024

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas- Villegas v. … The Court finds, as a matter of law, that Persons’ conduct did not violate a clearly established right and that his conduct is therefore protected under qualified immunity.

Pompa v. Bowser

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 27, 2020

Point Three: Qualified Immunity Defendants claim the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Defs.’ Answer to Am. Compl. [ECF 68] at 4. Mr. … Second, the court “asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. (quoting Hope v. 1 An excerpt of Mr.

Johnson v. Oregon Department of Revenue

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 28, 2020

Qualified immunity applies when a government official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … There are two prongs to analyzing qualified immunity: (1) whether the officer violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (2) whether the rights were “‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Tolan v.

Vannatta v. Keisling

899 F. Supp. 488 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 1995

The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three require *493 ments: plaintiffs must establish that (1) they have suffered an actual or imminent, concrete injury in fact, (2) there is a causal connection … was not justi-ciable because (1) plaintiffs did not suffer any adverse impacts during the pendency of the lawsuit, (2) plaintiffs did not allege an imminent injury, and (3) the criminal provision of the amendment did not clearly

Womack v. Kelly

District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2020

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials Afrom liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … As a matter of law, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Saula v. City of Newport

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 26, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Evans v. Deacon

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2021

Olvera 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.

McDougal v. U.S. Forest Service

195 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 15, 2002

The team also established a goal of having improved individual park and wilderness fire management plans in effect by May 1989. … Management Ignited Fires: Those ignited by qualified Forest Service officers. These are referred to as management ignited prescribed fires. Wildfire: is defined as any fire not meeting a prescribed fire definition.

Northwest Public Communications Council v. Oregon Public Utility Commission

805 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 27, 2011

Eleventh Amendment Immunity. … Kitzhaber establishes the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a lawsuit against PUC in federal court. 328 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.2003).

U S West Communications, Inc. v. TCG Oregon

35 F. Supp. 2d 1237 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 1998

Regardless of what other remedies U S West is seeking, it clearly seeks review of the Agreement as provided under the Act. … services, such as the charge a customer pays to have telephone service established.

Simpson Timber Co. v. Great Salt Lake Minerals & Chemicals Corp.

296 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 1969

The flume was constructed *245 through the joint efforts of four parties : the defendant, a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Utah, the owner of the flume; the plaintiff, a Washington corporation qualified … Thus, the first criterion is clearly met. 2) Did the cause of action arise out of the business transaction ? It did.

Strom v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 28, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants also oppose Strom’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Resp. at 2.) … Courts determine whether qualified immunity applies by analyzing “whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right[,]” and, if so, “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the [official’s]

Maciejewski

District Court, D. Oregon · May 12, 2026

In the alternative, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualify immunity. Defs’. Mot. 16. I. … “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.” Garza v. City of Salem, 690 F.

Garza v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Defendant Baker is entitled to qualified immunity. Def. Mot. Summ. J. 11. … “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.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Coffelt v. Pena

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 1, 2021

On the issue of qualified immunity, however, the Court clarifies that the specific constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of the conduct because Defendants could have “reasonably but mistakenly … City of San Diego, 823 F.3d 1223, 1233 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Because the standard for probable cause is well settled, the question with respect to whether an unlawful arrest violated clearly established law is whether it is

United Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

258 F. Supp. 735 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 1966

Were the “references” published clearly limited to parties explicitly identified, or identified as participants in the CBS tests? … The mantle of partial immunity might well cover both.

Damiano v. Grants Pass School District No. 7

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2023

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 … established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Rubin v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2022

Qualified immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages.” Wood v. Moss, 134 S. … Qualified immunity, however, is only an immunity from suit for damages, it is not an immunity from suit for declaratory or injunctive relief. See L.A. Police Protective League v.

Conklin v. Oregon Medical Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 2025

Most, if not all, of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are likely barred by sovereign, judicial, or qualified immunity. … Or. 2021).5 Even if the individual defendants do not have absolute immunity for either damages or injunctive relief, they are likely entitled to qualified immunity for any damages claims against them in their individual