Case law

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.

Estate of William B Hanington v. Multnomah County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2022

Clearly Established Right In their discussion of qualified immunity, the Haningtons do not mention the supervisory defendants at all. See Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF 63] at 25-27. … Even if Deputy Kame’s actions were unconstitutional, their unconstitutionality was in no way clearly established. Thus, Deputy Kame is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

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.

Plumeau v. Yamhill County School District 40

907 F. Supp. 1423 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 14, 1995

However, on sua sponte reconsideration, the panel vacated its earlier decision and determined that it need not reach the “affirmative duty” issue because the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in any event: [T … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity

Sims v. Juras

313 F. Supp. 1212 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 1969

. § 1983 to secure rights, privileges and immunities established by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Social Security Act, Title 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., and the regulations promulgated … Frank Dixon, citizens of the State of Oregon and the duly qualified, appointed and acting members of the Oregon State Public Welfare Commission, who are charged under ORS 411.060 and ORS 411.070 with establishing and enforcing

Icon Groupe, LLC v. Washington County

948 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2013

The defendant had unequivocally denied Foss’s application as untimely, clearly establishing the deprivation requirement. Icon’s reliance on Schneider v. … The First Amendment right to free speech is not immune to regulation or restriction by the states.

Forter v. Young

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 2020

A government official being sued under § 1983 is protected by qualified immunity for damages from an allegedly unlawful action unless he acted in a way that a reasonable official would understand violates a clearly established … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court must evaluate whether the alleged action amounts to a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right was clearly established at the time

United States v. Savath

300 F. Supp. 3d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2018

In Voisine , the Supreme Court clearly limited its holding to § 921(a)(33)(A) and unequivocally declined to extend it to § 16. 136 S.Ct. at 2280 n.4. … Because Voisine is not "clearly irreconcilable" with Dixon , Lawrence , and Parnell , those cases remain binding on this Court. Id. at 1159.

Nordenstrom v. Corizon Health, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 18, 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 … For the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court will consider whether the right at issue here was clearly established on November 3, 2016.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Runyon

320 F.R.D. 245 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 8, 2017

It is well established that federally recognized tribes cannot be compelled to join a federal action unless they unequivocally waive their sovereign immunity or Congress expressly abrogates their immunity from suit. … Or. 2005) (finding legal action against an Indian tribe is precluded unless the tribe waives its immunity or Congress expressly abrogates tribal immunity).

Bonneau

District Court, D. Oregon · May 1, 2026

Additionally, a court must dismiss a complaint on immunity grounds once it has “sufficient information to make a determination” that a defendant is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Chavez v. … However, as described below, the complaint does not establish a legally coherent theory of liability and therefore must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Gardner v. Hutson

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 2020

Alternatively, defendants are 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.

Uribe v. Greiner

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2019

Bomar are entitled to qualified immunity. … “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 rights of which a reasonable

In Re Ott

69 B.R. 1 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 24, 1986

Accordingly, applying the rationale established by this court in Mace, [In re] Mendenhall [ 4 B.R. 127 (D.Or.1980)] and Hebert this court concludes that the debtors’ interest in the plan does not qualify as exempt under ORS … STANDARD OP REVIEW The conclusions of law of the bankruptcy court are reviewed de novo, but the findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.

Johnson v. Aiken

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 23, 2025

To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims the litigant seeks to pursue are not frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), 1915 … Additionally, Plaintiffs’ attempted claims here are clearly barred by judicial immunity.

McKinney v. Benton County

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 2020

Similarly, plaintiff fails to plead facts required to overcome County employee defendants’ qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects defendants “from suit” and is not “a mere defense to liability.” Pearson v. … Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability for violating rights that are not clearly established. Id. at 232.

Cisneros v. City of Klamath Falls Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2022

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suits seeking damages provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct did not violate clearly established law. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009).

Cox v. Northwest Regional Education Service District

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 2024

Thus, qualified immunity may apply to their conduct. Plaintiffs cite no factually analogous cases showing that the applicable law was clearly established. … Because the rights Plaintiffs assert were not clearly established when they were allegedly violated, Defendants Goldman and Simons are entitled to qualified immunity. VIII.

Croshaw v. Koninklijke Nedlloyd, B. v. Rijswijk

398 F. Supp. 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 1975

They impose higher compensation payments upon the stevedore, but immunize him from redemption actions by the vessel. … If notice is not provided and the stevedore’s lien is determined to qualify him for intervention of right, he may be able to intervene even after final judgment.

Hoge v. Korn

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 9, 2021

Plaintiff does not provide a basis for his objection to Judge Russo’s recommended finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Judge Russo’s recommended finding on qualified immunity, therefore, is reviewed for clear error.