Case law

Godstone

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 14, 2026

The Supreme Court’s doctrine of qualified immunity shields prison guards and other public officials from liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that the rights they assert were violated were clearly established in the case law at the time of the violation.

Robbins v. City of Medford

284 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 29, 2017

Because discretionary immunity is an affirmative defense on which the city would have the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is “appropriate only if [the city] establishes all of the elements of the defense as a matter … We turn to our examination of whether, with respect to each of plaintiffs specifications of negligence and each element of the discretionary immunity defense, the city has established its entitlement to discretionary immunity

Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.

278 Or. 347 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 1977

The law clearly recognizes that a former employer has a qualified privilege to make defamatory communications about the character or conduct of his employees to present or prospective employers. … The immunity is forfeited if the defendant steps outside of the scope of the privilege, or abuses the occasion. * * *. % * * * "* * * Furthermore, the qualified privilege will be lost if the defendant publishes the defamation

State v. Marshall

254 Or. App. 419 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 2013

Thus, Wilson’s testimony established that defendant, in giving his consent, actually relied on what he believed was a promise of immunity with respect to the contents of the RV. Further, that reliance was reasonable. … Wilson, a law enforcement officer, inserted a qualifying disclaimer in an official form at a citizen’s request.

Trabosh v. Washington County

140 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1996

Under that exception, if the partnership performs labor or services under a contract, it must qualify as an independent contractor under ORS 670.600 in order for its partners to be exempt. … It was also the way in which they normally charged other customers for hayrides; those other customers clearly did not have any right to control their performance.

McComb v. Tamlyn

173 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2001

On the other hand, a failure to recognize the need for that equipment under established criteria would not be immune. Id. at 14-15 . The court’s ruling in Stevenson illustrates the distinction. … As the Manual states, in a portion that plaintiffs expert quoted on cross-examination, “qualified engineers are needed to exercise engineering judgment inherent in the selection of traffic control devices.”

Apitz v. Dames

205 Or. 242 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1955

Joss was not the “widower” or say that he was not “a widower qualified to take” as the beneficiary under the Death Statute. … The statute clearly states that if there was no widower or dependent, a right of recovery was vested in the executor for the benefit of the estate.

Scott v. Jackson County

403 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 6, 2005

If the court finds at the first step that there was no constitutional violation, that ends the qualified immunity inquiry. Id. … If, however, the court finds that the conduct did violate a constitutional right, the court proceeds to determine whether that right was “clearly established” such that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his

Johnson v. HANADA

622 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2008

Officer Hanada, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on this basis. … Officer Hanada is not entitled to qualified immunity. 5. Plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the City of Beaverton’s municipal liability.

Becker v. Oregon

170 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 26, 2001

Pro se plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to amend their complaints to overcome any deficiencies, unless it clearly appears that the deficiencies cannot be overcome by amendment. Id. III. Discussion A. … are not immune to suits brought under Title II of the ADA and the RA because Congress effectively abrogated the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Storm v. McClung

334 Or. 210 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2002

It had previously paid a professional tree service to fell a number of trees in the *214 park; city employees did not believe that they were qualified to do the work safely. … The equipment that Bud’s Towing provided included a crane that had a bucket at one end; of those present, only Storm and Bullock were qualified to operate it.

Hyundai Semiconductor America v. City of Eugene

332 Or. 293 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 2001

Each of the Defendants adopted a new resolution [(the June resolutions)] requiring qualified businesses to make a ‘public benefit contribution’ of up to 15 percent of the tax exemption in order to qualify for the tax exemption … Specifically, the legislature replaced the departmental hearings process with a new process established in the magistrate division of the Tax Court. Id.; see Or Laws 1995, ch 650, § 2 (establishing magistrate division).

Hofer v. OHSU

328 Or. App. 352 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

But OHSU did not raise qualified privilege in its summary judgment motion, and its reference to qualified privilege in this court is factually and legally underdeveloped and does not provide a basis to affirm. … State of Oregon, 320 Or App 406, 410 n 4, 514 P3d 1131 (2022) (explaining that qualified immunity had not been raised in the state’s motion for summary judgment and that the state’s undeveloped qualified immunity argument

Alsos v. Kendall

111 Or. 359 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1924

There might be some basis for this contention if it were not for other provisions of the statute which, we think, clearly show a contrary intent. … Section 135 of Chapter 105, as amended by Section 5 of Chapter 295, Laws of 1923, provides that “licenses * * shall be issued to any qualified person or corporation by the master fish-warden upon ap *363 plication therefor

Pre-Hospital Medical Services, Inc. v. Malheur County

134 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 1995

In its first assignment, plaintiff argues that the court erred in concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the claims under 42 USC sections 1983 and 1988. … Forsyth, 472 US 511, 526 , 105 S Ct 2806 , *495 86 L Ed 2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Ortega v. Martin

293 Or. App. 180 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2018

2007). 3 The state's theory, generally stated, was that plaintiff's injuries arose out of his recreational use, allowed by the state, of either the ocean or the "ocean shore," as defined in ORS 390.605(2), both of which qualified … Thus, under Landis , the state still would not have established its entitlement to recreational immunity.

Weatherford v. County of Klamath

201 Or. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2005

discretionary immunity where evidence did not establish that an earlier *608 policy judgment actually governed the acts and omissions at issue); see also Mosley v. … for discretionary immunity).

Vogl v. Department of Revenue

327 Or. 193 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1998

Plaintiffs note, first, that Ragsdale explicitly declined to address the intergovernmental tax immunity implications of a Hughes remedy, an issue that clearly is raised by the 1995 enactment. … Ragsdale clearly endorses the notion that, just as a tax exemption that discriminates against federal retirees would violate the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity, so would a tax rebate that discriminates against

Ortega v. Port of Portland

147 Or. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1997

The State is clearly immune from suits in personam brought under the general *496 maritime law without its consent. Ex parte [State of New York, No. 1.] … The former has traditionally recognized state sovereign immunity, and the latter embodies a qualified waiver of that immunity.

Johnson v. Brown

193 Or. App. 375 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2004

Deschutes County fired him after an investigation established that he had engaged in work-related misconduct. … from liability for acts of its employees where the employees are immune from liability).