Case law

Freece v. Clackamas County

442 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 25, 2006

The next question is whether the right was clearly established. … “Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”

Chilcote v. Mitchell

166 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2001

The qualified immunity doctrine “shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper only if “under the plaintiffs version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, a reasonable officer could not have believed his conduct was unlawful

Addison v. City of Baker City

258 F. Supp. 3d 1207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2017

Defendants also argue that Lohner is protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. a. … Clearly established To determine whether'a government official’s conduct violates clearly established law, “a court must ask whether it would have been clear tó a reasonable officer that the alleged conduct was unlawful in

Holman v. City of Warrenton

242 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Nonetheless, Johansson and Pearson argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their misconduct and, in any event, their actions were reasonable

Lumbreras v. Roberts

319 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2004

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (per curiam) (“Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields [officers] from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed [the conduct … at issue] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.”

Housley v. Killinger

747 F. Supp. 1405 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 12, 1990

If established, good faith immunity is a defense to a claim for money damages against individual officials for actions which were objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established constitutional law. … The acts of Kil-linger in enforcing these policies do not abrogate the qualified immunity he has against the claims of Housley.

Webber v. First Student, Inc.

928 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity Bergreen raises a defense of qualified immunity in response to Webber’s § 1983 claim. … In the context of qualified immunity, the Court determines whether a right was clearly established by looking to “Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law existing at the time of the alleged act.” Cmty. House, Inc. v.

Ashley v. Sutton

492 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 26, 2007

entitled to qualified immunity [regarding the excessive force claim] if he could ... have reasonably but mistakenly believed that his ... conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Are Sutton and Gallaher entitled to qualified immunity? Sutton and Gallaher assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The test for qualified immunity is set out in Saucier v.

Clavette v. Sweeney

132 F. Supp. 2d 864 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2001

The determination whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity involves a two-step analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … The law. regarding the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the events at issue. See id. at 1141 .

DeBiaso v. Spitz

957 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2013

Neither may they avail themselves of qualified immunity for such conduct because the “right to be free from judicial deception in securing [an order removing a child from the home] was clearly established” before the events … Although absolute and qualified immunity are not available to her, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs cannot establish that any representations she made to the Court at the shelter hearing were false.

Freyd v. Univ. of Or.

384 F. Supp. 3d 1284 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 2, 2019

Qualified immunity for each defendant depends on whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right in their individual capacities as university officials. … The Supreme Court, in analyzing qualified immunity and the "clearly established" requirement, looks to whether precedent that directly establishes a right exists, and does not account for emergent or theoretical rights.

Mashburn Ex Rel. CM v. Yamhill County

698 F. Supp. 2d 1233 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 4, 2010

Vesper be granted qualified immunity because plaintiffs’' rights had not been clearly established. The parties filed objections to the F & R, as well as responses to the other parties’ objections. … Qualified Immunity I find Mr. Loewen and Mr. Vesper are granted qualified immunity from suit because it was not clearly established that the strip searches at YCJDC were unconstitutional.

Updike v. City of Gresham

62 F. Supp. 3d 1205 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 15, 2014

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

Martiszus v. Washington County

325 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 21, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Against plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, Candilora invokes the defense of qualified immunity. … In sum the legal principles in play were so clearly established that, if the events were as plaintiff describes, Candilora is not entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim. 3 V.

Giba v. Cook

232 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A government official who performs discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Petersen v. Cazemier

164 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 23, 2001

Such agents are entitled to qualified immunity, unless a reasonable officer would have known that the conduct at issue was unlawful under clearly established law. LaLonde v. … In such a case, qualified immunity is inappropriate because a reasonable officer would surely know that such action was unlawful under clearly established law. 5 To survive defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiff must

Olsen v. United States

694 F. Supp. 1484 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 1988

Qualified Immunity Notwithstanding the sovereign immunity defense, the individual federal defendants are also qualifiedly immune from liability. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are qualifiedly immune from liability if a reasonable officer would not understand that what he is doing violates a clearly established right. Anderson v.

Hutchison v. Lake Oswego School District No. 7

374 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 25, 1974

Officials are not entitled to absolute immunity. They are entitled to a limited or a qualified immunity for acts done by them in good faith and within the scope of their official duties. Bennett v. … A successful defense on the merits merges with a successful defense under the qualified-immunity doctrine. McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287, 291 (7th Cir. 1968).

Hahn v. Oregon Physicians' Service

508 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 27, 1981

STATE ACTION IMMUNITY Defendants contend that they are entitled to antitrust immunity under the state action doctrine. … Immunity from the antitrust laws is available when the anticompetitive activity is “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as a state policy,” and when that policy is actively supervised by the state itself.

Sabbe v. Washington County Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Oregon · May 7, 2021

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 … Because the facts are so dissimilar, Deorle does not clearly establish that the officers’ conduct in this case was unconstitutional. Next, Plaintiff relies on George to defeat qualified immunity.