Case law

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.

Wilson v. Wilson

416 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 28, 1976

He has no intention to establish full-time residence in Oregon. In 1974 and 1975, plaintiff applied for admission to the Oregon bar. … However, it is not clear that the present statute grants absolute immunity. For example, the statute excepts from its grant of immunity one who commits perjury.

May v. Baldwin

895 F. Supp. 1398 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 7, 1995

immunity. … Qualified immunity does not affect claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330 , 335 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994).

Canell v. Bradshaw

840 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 23, 1993

Temporary Deprivation: Defendants contend they are qualifiedly immune because there was no clearly established law holding that Bounds applies tó “temporary” deprivations under the circumstances of this case. … Defendants have not shown they acted in a manner that a reasonable official would believe was consistent with plaintiffs clearly established rights. They have failed to establish their defense of qualified immunity.

Davis

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2026

This Court finds that because the unlawfulness of the individual Defendants’ conduct was not clearly established, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims. … But for purposes of the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, the question is whether every reasonable officer would have understood this based on legal precedent, Horton, 915 F.3d at 599.

Doe v. Holy See

434 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2006

The foreign state would thus be able to establish immunity and diminish the rights of injured persons seeking recovery. … Clearly, it is difficult to pinpoint the site of an omission.

Nielson v. Legacy Health Systems

230 F. Supp. 2d 1206 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 12, 2001

Additionally, plaintiffs claims against the SOSCF employees fail because child-welfare employees have qualified immunity from claims under § 1983 if their discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Even a grossly negligent investigation by a child-protective serviees-employee does not amount to deprivation of a clearly established right. Devereaux, 218 F.3d at 1054 (quoting Stem v.

Lavender v. Lampert

242 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2002

Legal Standard 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 of which … a defense of qualified immunity. 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Aranda v. City of McMinnville

942 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity Even if there were a constitutional violation, a government official may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Aranda, Broyles is not entitled to qualified immunity for his use of force.

Forster v. SAIF Corp.

23 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 15, 1998

Thus, the question is whether SAIF qualifies as a state instrumentality and is, therefore, “one of the United States” within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. Regents, 117 S.Ct. at 904 n. 5. … Based on these cases and the other cases on which SAIF relies, 3 this court is convinced that under Oregon law, SAIF qualifies as a state entity entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

McCrae v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 21, 2022

a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law at the time of the challenged conduct clearly established that the conduct was unlawful. … Additionally, because the question of whether Johnston’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right turns on disputed facts, the Court cannot make a determination regarding qualified immunity at this stage

Zimmerman v. State of Oregon Department of Justice

983 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 31, 1997

Compare ORS 657.601 (legislature established Employment Department to “[ajdminister the unemployment laws,” “[pjrovide for the operation of a statewide employment service,” manage an information system on the state labor … The other exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, waiver by the state, also does not apply here.

Godstone

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 14, 2026

The Supreme Court’s doctrine of qualified immunity shields prison guards and other public officials from liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that the rights they assert were violated were clearly established in the case law at the time of the violation.

Scott v. Jackson County

403 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 6, 2005

If the court finds at the first step that there was no constitutional violation, that ends the qualified immunity inquiry. Id. … If, however, the court finds that the conduct did violate a constitutional right, the court proceeds to determine whether that right was “clearly established” such that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his

Johnson v. HANADA

622 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2008

Officer Hanada, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on this basis. … Officer Hanada is not entitled to qualified immunity. 5. Plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the City of Beaverton’s municipal liability.

Becker v. Oregon

170 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 26, 2001

Pro se plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to amend their complaints to overcome any deficiencies, unless it clearly appears that the deficiencies cannot be overcome by amendment. Id. III. Discussion A. … are not immune to suits brought under Title II of the ADA and the RA because Congress effectively abrogated the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Bixby v. KBR, INC.

748 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 22, 2010

The strategy and tactics employed on the battlefield are clearly not subject to judicial review.... … Unless they qualify as employees or agents of the Government, private contractors may not bootstrap the Government’s sovereign immunity. McMahon v.

Keeley v. Evans

271 F. 520 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 14, 1921

Ed. 394 ), declares: “Its sole purpose was to declare to tbe several states that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise … Nor have complainant’s privileges and immunities been abridged, within the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Roaring Springs Associates v. Andrus

471 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 14, 1978

I remain persuaded that those Findings and Recommendation speak clearly and correctly to the issues posed by the briefs for summary judgment. … barred nonetheless by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Greisen v. Hanken

252 F. Supp. 3d 1042 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 12, 2017

The second step is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Thus, Greisen has satisfied step one of the qualified immunity analysis. b.