Case law

Bonnichsen v. United States, Department of the Army

969 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 19, 1997

I do not find the 1991 amendments to be clearly dispositive on their face. … But cf. 25 U.S.C. § 3010 (the procedures established by NAGPRA reflects the unique relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes and should not be construed to establish a precedent with respect to any other

Penk v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education

93 F.R.D. 45 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 9, 1981

This class is clearly too large to join all members. Are there questions of law and fact common to the putative class? Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). … Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 99 S.Ct. 1139 , 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) the Court stated that in enacting § 1983 Congress did not intend to override a state’s traditional 11th Amendment immunity.

AGG Enterprises, Inc. v. Washington County, Or.

145 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2001

The party challenging the regulation must establish that the burden on interstate commerce clearly outweighs the local benefits arising from the regulation. Id. … Article I, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution is an equal privileges and immunities clause that scrutinizes benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular class, rather than discrimination against a

McGuffin v. Oregon State Police

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2025

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 … For example, after asserting the Chief Reaves’ conduct did not violate McGuffin’s constitutional rights, the Municipal Defendants argue that Reaves is entitled to qualified immunity because “there is no clearly established

Dean v. Dravis

District Court, D. Oregon · May 20, 2021

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 … To determine whether a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity, the court evaluates, in no particular order, whether: (1) the alleged misconduct violated a right; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Reagan v. EOCI

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2021

Tackett and Officer Johnson 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.

Toney v. Medford Police Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2019

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.” … To determine whether a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity, the court evaluates, in no particular order, whether: (1) the alleged misconduct violated a right; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Bourgo v. Canby School District

167 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 21, 2001

Defendant further contends the undisputed facts establish Plaintiff was not a “qualified individual with a disability” protected by the ADA. … The FDAB concluded the district’s dismissal of Plaintiff “was not unreasonable, arbitrary or clearly excessive.”

Johnson-Laird, Inc. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

537 F. Supp. 52 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 20, 1981

In September of 1979, Johnson-Laird established “a branch” of this business in the United States, in Portland, Oregon. … qualified to make such transfers under § 101(aX15)(L).

Updike v. City of Gresham

99 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2015

To establish a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) “is an individual with a disability”; (2) “is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services, programs … To establish a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) is “handicapped within the meaning of the [Rehabilitation Act]”; (2) is “otherwise qualified for the benefits or services sought

Schoene v. Oregon Department of Human Services

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 24, 2025

The issue of qualified immunity, however, is tied to the facts of the given case and when considering qualified immunity “[w]here disputed facts exist,” a court “assum[es] that the version of the material facts asserted … immunity against that claim, unless Defendants withdraw at this time their argument asserting qualified immunity.

In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.

296 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 27, 2017

To qualify for the privilege, communications must have been made in confidence and in the context of an attorney-client relationship. … Work-Product Doctrine The work-product doctrine "is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.

Douglas v. Pearlstein

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 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. … At minimum, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Anderson v. Fifer

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Mr. Fifer, Mr. Utter, Mr. Moore, Mr. Bedsaul, Mr. French, and Mr. Buckwald are entitled to qualified immunity. Defs.’ … “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.

Bodewig v. Matteucci

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2021

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.

Walsh v. Gaffney

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity Government officials may be entitled to qualified immunity for claims brought under § 1983. … Defendants Gaffney and Rodriguez are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. II.

Freeman v. Schwartz

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2023

Defendants argue that Lieutenant Washburn is nevertheless 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

Monroe v. Hughes

860 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 1991

Although compliance with auditing standards will not immunize an auditor from all liability, compliance or non-compliance with regulations may be helpful in determining the issue of “recklessness.” … Poor internal control are not in the list of identified factors which should lead an accountant to consider qualifying her report.

Bondick v. Mitchell Sanchez

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2023

Mitchell Sanchez’s medical decisions, and thus clearly relate to the Board’s official actions. … Congress found it necessary to provide qualified immunity from damages actions for hospitals, doctors, and others who participate in the professional review process.

Boquist v. Courtney

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 17, 2023

Finally, Defendants aver that even if this Court does not grant absolute immunity, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Defs.’ Mot. 25. … But government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v.