Case law

State v. Herrera

32 Or. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 1978

However, if the testimony offered by defendant is not sufficient to establish the defense of mental disease or defect, it is permissible to omit such an instruction. State v. … The statute clearly requires that defendant’s lack of capacity to conform be the result of a mental disease or defect. ORS 161.295. *407 State v.

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.

Page v. Sparling

87 Or. App. 118 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 1987

If it is a continuing non-decision which is in issue, then clearly the state has not met its burden to establish its immunity. … Both clearly are empirical questions.

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

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.

City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters

20 Or. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1975

It includes requirements that collective bargaining take place on a broad range of issues; and creates the right to organize on the part of all public employes, a qualified right to strike on the part of all public employes … Clearly the 1973 labor relations legislation deals with many matters which are predominantly of local concern.

Rush v. Corvallis Sch. Dist. 509J

291 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 2018

Normally, a choice within the permissible range, in order to qualify for immunity, is one that has been made by a supervisor or policy-making body. … Applying those principles in Mosley , the court concluded that the district had established discretionary immunity as to the plaintiff's allegations that the defendant had failed to exercise proper supervision of students

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.

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.

Christianson v. State of Oregon

239 Or. App. 451 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2010

And finally, the lower court’s ruling that granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is unnecessary in light of our conclusion that, on the facts in the record, absolute immunity applies. … alleges facts that are sufficient to establish the defense.

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.

Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'LEARY

80 Or. App. 754 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 1986

The court listed “jury deliberations and court conferences” as two examples of judicial proceedings which could be held in private because of “well established * * * tradition.” 289 Or at 284 . … We apply Press-Enterprise II to determine whether there is a qualified right of access.

Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc.

346 Or. 128 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2009

generally discuss the issue in this case as whether defendants have “immunity.” … However, the OTCA does not, by its terms, “immunize” those persons.

Welch v. Bancorp Management Advisors, Inc.

57 Or. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

The court characterized thé operative rule as “application of a qualified privilege, with the burden of negating this qualified privilege placed upon plaintiff as part- of his affirmative case.” 287 Or at 371 . … Plaintiff urges that we adopt here the “primary motive” concept used to uphold qualified privilege in the context of defamation. See, e.g., Schafroth v.

Hungerford v. Portland Sanitarium & Benevolent Ass'n.

235 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1963

Mellenberger, 163 Or 233, 260 , 95 P2d 709 , 128 ALR 1506 (1939), which marshalled the authorities and concluded that, even in a criminal case, if the former decision is shown to be clearly in error it ought not to be followed … The verdict established the fault of the servant and the measure of damages. There is no question that the negligent servant was working within the scope *417 of her employment.

State v. Williams

46 Or. 287 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1905

established) and it would be most unreasonable to always require direct and positive evidence. … But a few courts have, by refined distinctions, qualified this doctrine slightly.

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.

State ex rel. Kashmir Corp. v. Schmidt

49 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 1980

We read this portion of the statute as qualifying an award of damages by making them available only and to the same extent as they would be available if the claim were tried as a separate action at law. … The petitioner does not challenge the basis of these findings. 6 Given these findings it is clear that the petitioner has failed to establish its case.

Oregonians for Sound Economic Policy, Inc. v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

218 Or. App. 31 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 2008

it was clearly based on past conduct. … But it clearly reflects the punitive, rather than the remedial, nature of the fine that the court imposed.