Case law

Clardy v. Gangitano

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2024

His declaration clearly establishes his actions as alleged in plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint were not outside the scope of his employment. … Gangitano stated that plaintiff’s property qualified as “abandoned” under the rule and was disposed of for that reason on May 1, 2020.

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

Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C

370 Or. 79 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2022

Unless such an executive officer can claim immunity on the basis of a quasi-judicial or legis- lative function, he is held to be subject to qualified privilege only.” W. Page Keeton, Dan B. … immunity would apply).

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

Gast v. State, by and Through Stevenson

36 Or. App. 441 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 1978

Suffice it to say Chapter 330 regulates "fringe benefit” programs established by employers of labor organizations that provide medical and disability benefits and thus clearly comes within the broad definition of "employee … "(b) No State may establish or enforce any law which prevents a health maintenance organization for which a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee was made under this subchapter or which is a qualified health maintenance

Santiam Fish & Game Ass'n v. State Tax Commission

229 Or. 506 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1962

As a corollary to that rule, the taxpayer has the burden of showing that it is qualified to claim the tax immunity. … For while it is now clearly established that a charity may carry on some commercial business without losing •its exemption [citing authorities], we think it is equally clear that an organization of a commercial character

State v. Bounds

71 Or. App. 744 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1985

The victim’s statements clearly were offered as evidence of a material fact. … Although incompetency due to age is not expressly listed as a situation of unavailability, we think that it qualifies.

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

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).

Ackerman v. OHSU MEDICAL GROUP

233 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 2010

Regarding the legislature’s limitation of the individual employees’ liability, however, the court concluded that, because the employees would not have qualified for sovereign immunity at common law, the plaintiffs remedy … Plaintiff’s remedy against West West, as an employee of OHSU and Medical Group, clearly falls within the scope of the substitution and cap statutes.

Gibson v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

307 Or. 120 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1988

The remaining question is whether the defendant met the ORS 656.017(1) requirement that the employer “maintain assurance” that its subject workers “will receive compensation for compensable injuries * * * by qualifying * … * * (a) [a]s a carrier-insured employer * * * or (b) [a]s a self-insured employer * * As stated, it is established that the defendant was a self-insured employer.

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.

Newport Church of the Nazarene v. Hensley

335 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 24, 2002

To qualify, a state unemployment compensation program must not exempt more workers from coverage than are exempt under the federal program. … provides, in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!.]”

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.

Brewer v. Department of Fish & Wildlife

167 Or. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2000

, and ORS 105.682, which provides recreational land immunity to the state, as well as to other qualified landowners. … However, as applied to state defendants, neither statute bestows any immunity that the state otherwise would not have because no affirmative act of the legislature is necessary to establish the state’s sovereign immunity.

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.

Christensen v. Epley

36 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1978

Therefore, we hold that plaintiff has alleged facts which establish the requisite legal duty. B. … not qualified for such an assignment.

Dykeman v. State

39 Or. App. 629 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1979

Ward is the duly appointed, qualified and acting inspector of buildings for the State of Oregon in the City of Coos Bay. "in "That by provision of the Building Code of the State of Oregon, said James E. … "V "That on presentation of said application and plans to the said inspector of buildings of said state, at its regular established office, Plaintiff delivered *632 $99.00 which was the amount of the fee required for the

Kramer v. Southern Oregon University

995 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 22, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that Defendant Cullman and Defendant Pernsteiner are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Hawkins v. City of La Grande

315 Or. 57 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1992

State of Oregon, supra, this court pointed out that “[t]he burden is on the state to establish its immunity.” 290 Or at 15 . In Little v. … The facts of this case establish the claim of condemnation of the crops and livestock killed sufficiently to establish the claim on that theory.