Case law

United States v. Armsbury

408 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 12, 1976

Here only 153 of the 2,705 in the qualified jury pool had failed to answer the questions on race. 12 Although the defendant need not prove prejudice to establish a violation of the Jury Selection Act, he must prove a substantial … Qualified Jury Wheels or Boxes.

Evans v. Gower

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 2022

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 … 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.”

Krivolenkov v. Ferrer

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 20, 2020

A right is said to be “clearly established” when a “reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Saucier v. … Krivolenkov’s First Amendment right to film was “clearly established,” no case establishes that Trooper Ferrer’s conduct here violated that right.

Diamond v. City of Sandy

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 20, 2025

The second step is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … After that, “in the absence of binding precedent, [courts] look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts

Martinez-Delacruz v. Stuart Olson Farms, Inc.

612 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2007

The defense of qualified privilege can be overcome if the alleged defamatory statements were made in bad faith or with malice. Id. … In Ram-stead, the Court reasoned that the relation of citizens to judicial proceedings is so important that “absolute immunity attaches to statements made in the course of, or incident to a judicial proceeding.” 219 Or. at

McDonald v. Shelton

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 15, 2021

that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages.” Wood v.

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

118 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 2000

Is the Corps immune from such a suit? The Corps asserts that it cannot be sued under § 1365(a)(2) because it has sovereign immunity. … The P.E.A.C.H. court found that subsection (a)(2) specifically refers to the Administrator of the EPA, but does not “clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity in regard to the Army Corps of Engineers.” 87 F.3d at

Yela Fiduciary Services, LLC v. Benton County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2023

; and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established.” … And preexisting law clearly establishes that a government official violates the Constitution when they fail to provide sufficient medical care to a detained person. San Diego Cnty v.

ANA International, Inc. v. Way

242 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 6, 2002

Based on the evidence submitted, it cannot be concluded that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. … Neither interpretation, however, is clearly the correct one.

Loiseau v. Dept. of Human Resources of State of Or.

567 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 1983

Plaintiff was and is well qualified for promotion. Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment. Defendants articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the denial of promotion. … Nor must plaintiff prove that he would have been the most qualified person for the job. Wang, supra. The criteria established for disparate treatment cases by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green v. Frederickson

District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2020

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Rollins v. McMinnville School District 040

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2021

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 … The Court concludes that because the constitutional rights in question were clearly established, Defendants McIrvin and Fast are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Yanes

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 2024

To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that Yanes (1) “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) “the unlawfulness of [his] conduct was clearly established at the time.” D.C. v. … Because resolution of these factual disputes is necessary to determine whether Yanes violated Smith’s constitutional rights that were clearly established, Yanes is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified

Garcia Chavez v. United States of America

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 17, 2023

In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, this Court considers: (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, it is not enough that a plaintiff shows that a defendant’s conduct amounted to a constitutional violation.10 The specific conduct must violate “clearly established law” such

Kockums Industries Ltd. v. Salem Equipment, Inc.

561 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 1983

Third, that even if the attorney-client privilege is to be vitiated the attorney *171 work product immunity should nevertheless isolate the documents from disclosure. … Tex.1981) (following in camera review, no prima facie case of fraud established).

Matheney

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 14, 2025

Qualified Immunity Even if an officer's conduct is objectively unreasonable, “‘[q]ualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established … “Once a defendant has raised qualified immunity as a defense to a claim, a plaintiff must show (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.”

Daniels v. Cleaver

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 27, 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. … Cleaver are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ferry v. Doohan

District Court, D. Oregon · May 31, 2020

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Asa matter of law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Lewis

284 F. Supp. 3d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 9, 2018

As previously noted, it is well established within the Ninth Circuit that reckless and negligent offenses fall outside of the ACCA elements clause. See Dixon , 805 F.3d at 1197 ; Parnell , 818 F.3d at 981 n.5. … As Voisine is not "clearly irreconcilable" with Dixon, Lawrence , and Parnell , those earlier Ninth Circuit decisions remain binding on this Court.

Nilsson v. Baker County, Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 21, 2022

“A government officer is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff's rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Ballentine, 28 F.4th at 64. … As to qualified immunity, “[t]he law is clearly established that a search may not exceed the scope of the search warrant.” KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). B.