Case law

Wright v. Wells

231 Or. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 2009

The evidence clearly demonstrates an express agreement. Defendants also contend that, because the fence was meant to keep cattle away from Dye’s garden, “[m]ost likely it was intended as a mere barrier.” We disagree. … by a qualified surveyor.”

Krein v. Szewc

287 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2017

Defendants answered by asserting the farm use immunity defense as an affirmative defense. … , namely when and to what extent the defendants had a qualifying farm operation.”

Allen v. County of Jackson

169 Or. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 12, 2000

immunities secured by federal law as well. … If that analysis clearly identifies the legislature’s intent, further inquiry is unnecessary. ORS 652.110 to ORS 652.200 pertain to the payment and collection of unpaid wages generally.

Frank v. Kotek

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 17, 2025

Further, even if the claims were not time-barred, because the Attorney Defendant was not acting as an agent of the State and the State Defendants are subject to prosecutorial, sovereign, and qualified immunity, Plaintiff … Specifically, Defendant Blixseth asserts prosecutorial immunity, while Defendants Hammond and Burreson claim qualified immunity. Id.

Perry v. Rein

215 Or. App. 113 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2007

It is well established that a termination resulting from a settlement among the parties is not a favorable termination as to any of those parties. … Moreover, the policy *131 favoring settlement does not somehow immunize parties who otherwise bring actions without probable cause and with malice; otherwise, it would essentially license extortion, provided that an appropriate

Sarantex Shipping Company v. Wilbur-Ellis Company

391 F. Supp. 884 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 18, 1975

In that case, defendant herein sought to establish the liability of the vessel and its owner for cargo loss and damage. … Clearly this case does not involve a simple sale of cargo. The cargo was not paid for by W-E: rather, it was accepted essentially on a consignment basis.

State ex rel. v. Siemens

68 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1913

It does not establish any procedure or specify any authority by which this value can be determined. Manifestly that is one of the matters committed to the judgment of the public custodian of funds. … process or proceeding before or by any inferior court, officer, or tribunal may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for error therein, as in this chapter prescribed, and not otherwise. ’ ’ This language clearly

State v. Gardner

71 Or. App. 590 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 1985

He contends that his conviction on the pointing a firearm at another charge immunizes him from further prosecution for the ex-convict in possession offense, on the basis of statutory and constitutional prohibitions against … That rule clearly puts the burden of initial joinder on the state.

State v. Oneill

256 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2013

Haugen, 349 Or 174, 202 , 243 P3d 31 (2010) (reasoning that the legislature’s use of a qualifying term in one section and not *542 another “demonstrates that the legislature knew how to use such a term but did not do so”) … injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.’” 306 Or at 606 n 5 (quoting ORS 161.200).

Sproul v. Gilbert

226 Or. 392 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1961

If any interference by the transferor is prohibited, the transferee’s interest is clearly a leasehold. … Plaintiffs’ claim of immunity on the ground that they are instrumentalities of the federal government can not be sustained.

Yamhill County v. Ludwick

294 Or. 778 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 3, 1983

Lintz, 101 Ariz 448, 420 P2d 923, 927 (1966), the Arizona Supreme Court considered the term “legally established” lot: “It is generally recognized that the act of recording one’s subdivision plat legally establishes each … The statutes in force at the time Hemstreet sold the tracts in question clearly required that the subdivision be approved and the plat be recorded before any lots could be sold. ORS 92.016, 92.025.

STATE EX REL. JUV. DEPT. OF CLATSOP COUNTY v. Martin

19 Or. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 1974

Martin and each of the four doctors appears to lack merit in light of the facts established in this record. … The way to decision is not clearly marked for us.

Smith v. City of Dalles

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants briefly argue that Officer Nagamatsu is entitled to qualified immunity for making the purported arrest when he placed Plaintiff in handcuffs, even … Further, the purported arrest violated clearly established constitutional law.

Cole v. Seaside

80 Or. 73 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1916

It was decided by this court', however, that owing to the fact that the local option law contained penal provisions, it was a criminal law within the meaning of the constitutional provision quoted above, and hence was immune … The city was clearly without power to assume jurisdiction as it attempted, in the absence of a legislative surrender of the state’s prerogative, over the highway in question.

State v. Whitmore

257 Or. App. 664 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 2013

Qualify her as an expert on this issue. I think it goes to the jury to determine the value or weight to determine that testimony in light of the overall circumstances. … The trial court erred in not requiring the state to show that her methods were scientifically valid under the standards established in Brown and O’Key .

Lee v. Walters

172 F.R.D. 421 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 10, 1997

“The burden of establishing substantial justification is on the party being sanctioned.” Telluride Mgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Telluride Inv. Group, 55 F.3d 463 , 466 (9th Cir.1995). … In contrast to the sovereign immunity of the federal government, the immunity of a state derives solely from the Eleventh Amendment.

Matter of Marriage of Landis

200 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2005

The waiver referred to is established by 10 USC section 3105 ; a veteran who qualifies for retirement pay but who wants to receive disability pay under title 38 as well must, in order to prevent “double dipping * * * waive … Clauson, 831 P2d 1257, 1259 (Alaska 1992), the Alaska Supreme Court reasoned: “The Mansell holding clearly prohibits state courts from treating veterans’ disability pay as divisible property upon divorce.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Ellis

356 Or. 691 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2015

See 356 Or at ___ n 45 (noting requirements for immunity or nonprosecution agreement). … It was the document production itself—not necessarily the accuseds’ participation in the production—that most clearly had potential adverse consequences to the Daltry and Samper.

Gardner v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 24, 2025

The State Defendants further argue that “[Gardner’s] amendment would still be futile because defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment.” (Id. at 10, citing Johnson v. Am. … Dec. 19, 2024) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s claims are futile on the ground that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]he [defendant]’s arguments are more appropriate in

Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc.

970 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 2013

It wrote: “While Buchanan clearly has no formalized education or training in HR practices, I find him qualified to testify about standard HR practices in large organizations on the basis of his experience performing discrimination … The Court agrees with Arnold that Pfizer has failed to establish, as a matter of law, that she was not qualified to perform the essential functions of her job.