Case law

Araujo v. General Electric Information Services

82 F. Supp. 2d 1161 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 4, 2000

This qualified immunity may be lost if the publisher does not believe or lacks reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the alleged defamatory statement; if the defamatory matter is published for a purpose other than … immunity that generally applies to an employer’s own disclosures under such circumstances.

LaTulippe v. Oregon Medical Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2025

As set out below, however, they are entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to show the OMB staff members violated clearly established law.

Khimich v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 2024

Judge You found that plaintiff failed to establish that the Doe defendants violated a clearly established right and that qualified immunity therefore barred plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Doe defendants. … established right and dismissed claims on the basis of qualified immunity.

Deschutes River Alliance v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co.

323 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 11, 2018

The 2005 License also establishes Implementation Committees-a component of the Relicensing Settlement Agreement-including a Fish Committee. Id. at ¶ 31 . … It thus seems clear that the text and history of the RCRA clearly indicates congressional intent to abrogate the Tribe's sovereign immunity with respect to violations of the RCRA.

Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington

967 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2013

The party asserting sovereign immunity has the “burden of proving the facts that establish its immunity.” ITSI T.V. Prods., Inc. v. Agric. Assocs., 3 F.3d 1289 , 1292 (9th Cir.1993). … June 7, 2010), the court, relying on a Florida Supreme Court case, held that determining whether “a governmental action qualifies as a discretionary governmental process,” which Florida exempted from a waiver of immunity,

Conklin

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 12, 2026

Garnand, 83 F.4th 743, 753 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that the plaintiff has the “burden to identify the clearly established law”). Krishnaswami is entitled to qualified immunity for Claim 2. Claims 1, 3, and 4. … Those allegations also do not make out a clearly established constitutional violation. The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Claim 3.

Woodward Stuckart, LLC v. United States

973 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2013

Therefore, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Bridge Creek Fire qualified for WFU management. … The facts clearly establish that the Bridge Creek Fire blew up quickly and unexpectedly. On August 14, 2008, the Fire was only .25 acres in size; plaintiffs’ complaint acknowledges this fact. See Compl. ¶ 49.

Estate of Chase Brooks v. City of Springfield

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 2024

Button, 810 F.3d 609, 615 (9th Cir. 2015) (“If indeed the…officers did not violate clearly established law, then we can determine that qualified immunity is appropriate and may thus dispose of the case without undertaking … That case provides a thoughtful and compelling history of qualified immunity. Id. at *1. But as that case itself acknowledges, “qualified immunity is the law of the land.” Id. at *19.

McCollough v. Portland State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2024

by him.9 Consequently, application of a clear and convincing standard was not clearly established and “beyond debate,” and Jeffords is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … established to put the individual Defendants on notice so as to defeat qualified immunity.”); Hunt v.

Taylor v. Bay Area Hospital

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2025

The Court addresses the clearly established law inquiry of the qualified immunity analysis at the outset. Plaintiff argues that under Ellis v. … qualified immunity].”

Ernst v. City of Eugene

903 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2012

“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 person … To ascertain whether qualified immunity applies, the court determines whether a deprivation of a constitutional right occurred and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation, though not necessarily

McLean v. Pine Eagle School District, No. 61

194 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 2016

Officials and employees of the government (including a school district) are entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless they violate a constitutional right that “was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Thus, all individual Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Barror v. City of Saint Helens

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 18, 2024

A clearly established right is "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood 2 Defendants' answer asserts qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, negating any potential issue of waiver. … Further, "'[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.'" Doerle v.

Sessions v. Hunt

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 24, 2024

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 … Plaintiff, however, also fails to meet his burden at the second Saucier step to show that the law was clearly established. Plaintiff points to no case law in arguing that qualified immunity applies.

In Re Christensen

167 B.R. 213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 29, 1994

It has been suggested that quasi-judicial actors should be given only qualified immunity from suit instead of absolute immunity. See Watts v. Burkhart, 978 F.2d 269, 278 (6th Cir.1992) (Martin, J., dissenting). … Although those decisions have now been found wanting, Respondent did not violate Appellant’s clearly established rights, constitutional or otherwise.

DeLong Corporation v. Oregon State Highway Com'n

233 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 24, 1964

The language of the Oregon Supreme Court clearly recognizes that a suit against the Highway Commission, and its members, is to be viewed as a suit against the state. 23 Persuasive in a study of the status of the commission … This principle is established and clearly stated in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1899) and Ex parte New York, 256 U.S. 490 , 41 S.Ct. 588 , 65 L. Ed. 1057 (1921).

Grant v. Multnomah County Jail

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2025

The Supreme Court has explained that the “[l]aw is ‘clearly established’ for the purposes of qualified immunity if ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates the right’ at issue.” … App’x 449, 450 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that “the district court did not err in denying [the defendant’s] motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity” because “[t]he law is clearly established that a reasonable

Jones v. Kitzhaber

212 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 10, 2002

, and the state officials have qualified immunity. … The burden is on plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction, to clearly allege facts that establish standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

Segura v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 2022

The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendation, with the exception of the portion discussing whether the law on failure to intervene is clearly established for purposes of Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. … Defendants rely on an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision to argue that when an officer must intercede is not clearly established and thus Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Penaloza v.

Jimenez-Mendez v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 29, 2024

The Clearly Established Right Test Cannot Be Applied at a High Level of Generality It is a heavy burden to prove a clearly established right for the purposes of qualified immunity. … did not have a clearly established right.