Case law

Jesus Velez Pastrana and John G. Irwin, Jr. v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 15, 2026

Additionally, Plaintiffs further argue that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, and Defendant agrees. Id. at 14–15; Def.’s Reply 17. (quoting L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 1996)). … Second, Glenn involved legally distinct issues; that is, whether the defendants used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Farrell v. Port of Columbia

50 Or. 169 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1907

This suit involves the constitutionality of an act of the legislative assembly of 1907 to establish and incorporate the Port of Columbia: Laws 1907, p. 182. … The act creating the ■Port of Portland is clearly a' special law as so defined, and cannot be upheld without doing violence to the expressed and plain language of the constitution.

State v. Garcia

74 Or. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 1985

There was testimony, including that of the robbers, who had been granted immunity, from which a jury could have found that defendant agreed with the robbers to participate in the crime. 1 In return for a share of the proceeds … In any event, because of the first trial, defendant was clearly on notice of the state’s theory at the second trial. 3 Venue for both conspiracy and “accomplice robbery” would have been proper in the county where the agreement

State v. Cochran

55 Or. 157 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1909

The local option law concerns only the “sale or disposition” of spirituous liquors, and, as stated, is clearly within the St. Johns charter exemption on the subject. … It is the wisely established policy of all courts in English speaking countries not to set aside or disregard well-established precedents in order *168 to meet special emergencies.

In Re Jennings

306 B.R. 672 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jan 8, 2004

If this distress alone were sufficient to make the obligation one of support, then virtually all claims between former spouses might qualify. This was not Congress’s intent. … . § 507 (a)(7) clearly limits priority to payments which are, in fact, needed for support. The record in this case does not sustain a finding that the claim so qualifies.

State v. Rossiter

300 Or. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2019

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a cer- tain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opinion testimony.” Yundt v.

Mora-Contreras v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2020

to prison officials, was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. … established at the time of the events in question and therefore Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

City of Nyssa v. Dufloth

184 Or. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2002

We relied on the clearly established prohibition against the former to conclude that laws regulating the latter also qualify as a historical exception to Article I, section 8. … Stoneman, 323 Or 536, 545-49 , 920 P2d 535 (1996), the court qualified its reasoning in Tidyman and Robertson .

A.F. v. Evans

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 30, 2022

At oral argument, Judge Sullivan commented “I don’t think defendants have a very strong case on qualified immunity. I think this case is going to go to trial.” Rizzo Decl. ¶ 89. … As noted, Defendants had much a different view of the evidence and the law on qualified immunity.

Hentz v. Gruenwald

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 5, 2020

McCollum, 647 F.3d at 882. 9 - OPINION AND ORDER Defendants also assert qualified immunity on all claims … I am not inclined to find qualified immunity absent a more developed record and argument relevant to the specific circumstances presented by plaintiff’s claim. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.

State v. Phillips

245 Or. App. 38 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 2011

“And I — I think clearly that the only thing that showing this video and these photographs would be useful for would be to inflame the jury. … It’s clearly overly prejudicial, and that prejudicial highly outweighs any probative value of which I honestly don’t believe there’s any to begin with.”

Williams v. City of Astoria

43 Or. App. 745 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1979

The statute before us is a general law which establishes the permissible degree of regulation of the political freedoms of public employees. … In a city, not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by the initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified voters may be required to order a referendum on legislation

Slater v. SAIF Corp.

287 Or. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 2017

The board found that the medical evidence established “the presence of a statutory ‘preexisting condition’ (osteoarthritis),” citing Di Paola’s opinion, and that “the medical evidence establishes that the preexisting condition … The report clearly specifies that “no combined conditions” were affecting claimant’s impairment. C.

Public Utility Commission v. Tillotson

210 Or. App. 433 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 3, 2007

. * * * Misconduct has been *437 established.” As a result, the ALJ reversed the decision of the department and denied claimant’s request for benefits. Claimant appealed the ALJ’s decision to the board. … Until 2004, the rule did not further define or describe what qualifies as an “isolated instance of poor judgment.”

Vega v. Farmers Insurance

323 Or. 291 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1996

As indicated, the text of ORS 742.504 does not, in itself, establish which of the foregoing meanings was intended. … Just as clearly, the policy term disfavors insureds more than ORS 742.504(7)(c)(A) does.

Marquam v. Ray

65 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1913

Rep. 912 ), says: “ ‘The language used in the grant of general power is certainly very comprehensive, but the established rule of construction limits the authority derived by the general grant of power to the acts authorized … This clearly means he is to sell or mortgage the lot in order to raise money for Georgia Eiley. When he has raised the móney, he has exhausted the power and his authority to sell is terminated.

De Los-Santos v. Si Pac Enterprises, Inc.

278 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 2016

It follows from Young that, to prevail on a new or omitted condition claim under ORS 656.267, the claimant must prove that the claimed new or omitted condition not only exists, but also qualifies as a condition, rather than … 656.267, regarding claims for “new and omitted medical conditions,” provides: “(1) To initiate omitted medical condition claims under ORS 656.262 (6)(d) or new medical condition claims under this section, the worker must clearly

Peterson v. State Compensation Department

257 Or. 369 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1970

We think the legislature in 1951 clearly intended that only those workmen who, after their claims had been rejected, established their right to compensation were entitled to attorney fees paid as an administrative expense … In order to qualify a workman had to prevail over a commission order rejecting his claim.

Timber Structures, Inc. v. C. W. S. Grinding & MacHine Works

191 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1951

Kreipe was a well-qualified expert in his line. … The statute is strictly construed as to persons entitled to its benefits and as to the procedure necessary to perfect the lien; but when the claimant’s right has been clearly established, the law will be liberally interpreted

Maher v. United States

23 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 1938

This phrase was used not to make a dichotomy between these types of service, but to mark clearly the all embracing purpose of Congress. … must go further and find whether or not the applicant qualifies under Section 307.