Case law

Sherman v. Dept. of Human Services

368 Or. 403 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 2021

by law, including but not limited to the limitations established by ORS 12.110.” 1 ORS 124.100 provides for, among other things, increased damages and attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs who qualify … ORS 124.105 lists specific conduct that qualifies as “physical abuse” as described in actions for increased damages under ORS 124.100.

Brasel v. Children's Services Division

56 Or. App. 559 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1982

The burden is on the state to establish its immunity, either by (1) the nature of the function, or (2) evidence of how the decision was made. 290 Or at 15 . … We conclude, therefore, that the state may not, in this case, establish its claim of discretionary authority at the pleading stage.

City of North Bend v. County of Coos

259 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1971

is no defense because the legislature has waived immunity by statute in this type of case. … That clearly cannot be assumed in the present case.

State v. Graves

58 Or. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 1982

A hearing was held on the motion, at which time the district attorney informed the court that defendant did not qualify for diversion. The court denied the motion. … That evidence clearly provided a reason to suspect that he was drug-dependent. Defendant was entitled to evaluation.

State v. Savastano

354 Or. 64 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 12, 2013

*  * [T]he privileges or immunities faced by defendant here are clearly of *  constitutional magnitude.” Savastano, 243 Or App at 588-89. … The dependent clause qualifies what would otherwise be an almost absolute prohibition on lawmaking, because lawmak- ing almost always involves or establishes some advantage or disadvantage for some group of citizens.

Egner v. City of Portland

103 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 1990

State of Oregon, 290 Or 3 , 619 P2d 247 (1980), the evidence in the summary judgment proceeding does not establish that Coleman followed the policy. 3 No one performed a pedestrian count, as required by the policy, to determine … In the absence of a showing of contrary legislative intent, the brief visual inspection that Coleman performed would not qualify as a “study.”

Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District

146 Or. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1997

To the contrary, the evidence established that the Board of Directors, as well as Mr. … Normally, a choice within the permissible range, in order to qualify for immunity, is one that has been made by a supervisor or a policy-making body.” Mosley, 315 Or at 92 (citations omitted).

Hale v. Port of Portland

308 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1989

Although Article IV, section 24, assumes the preexistence of sovereign immunity, nothing in its language establishes that immunity. … In any event, abolition by this court of common-law sovereign immunity would have no effect on the outcome of this case because the OTCA establishes partial immunity by statute. See Heino v.

Kane v. League of Oregon Cities

66 Or. App. 836 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 1984

Plaintiff contends that the announcement was an offer which he accepted by being the best qualified candidate to apply for the award. … Acceptance of the application and fee constituted acceptance of an offer to apply under the criteria defendant had established.” 69 Ill 2d at 330.

Dept. of Human Services v. F. T. R.

306 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2020

of use immunity. … On this record, mother has not established that the ordered psychological evaluation was so clearly incriminating in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights that it was impermissible in the absence of a blanket grant of use

Gunn v. Lane County

173 Or. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2001

See Tanner, 157 Or App at 521-23 (discussing the different levels of scrutiny applied to statutes once true classes are established). … The legislature reasonably could conclude that extending immunity to government employees is necessary to ensure that qualified persons will work for the government.

Smith v. Cooper

256 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1970

The defendants are State Highway Commission officials and employees and their alleged negligence was in planning, establishing and maintaining the highway at the place of the accident. … We do not construe this statute as clearly evidencing a legislative intent to change the law and to take away the immunity granted to public employees.

Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C

313 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 2021

The district alleged that, because its employees were immune from liability by virtue of the privilege, the district was immune as well. … A qualified privilege does not act as a complete bar to liability but requires that the plain- tiff prove that the defendant abused the privilege as a condi- tion of establishing liability. Bank of Oregon v.

State v. Jacob

125 Or. App. 643 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 1994

Defendant moved to compel the state to grant immunity to the witnesses, which the court denied. … On the other hand, the same words spoken under different circumstances, e.g., to an acquaintance, would have no difficulty in qualifying.”

Matter of Marriage of Crocker

157 Or. App. 651 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1998

Father is a member of a disfavored class of parents who are denied that immunity, so he unquestionably is someone who can challenge the grant of that immunity. … Because the focus of father’s arguments on appeal is on the immunity from court-ordered support that is given to married parents but denied to divorced or separated parents, we will focus on that immunity as well.

Preble v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 287

298 Or. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2019

Any departure from that waiver, defendant argues, must be clearly stated in the wording of a statute. ORS 656.019(2)(a) says nothing about waiving sovereign immunity. … As a rule, defendant contends, waivers of sovereign immunity *48 may not be implied, but must be clearly stated in the terms of a statute.

Scovill v. City of Astoria

129 Or. App. 240 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 1994

The complaint does not disclose on its face that all elements necessary to establish immunity are present. See McBride v. Magnuson, 282 Or 433 , 578 P2d 1259 (1978). … Whether or not the city is correct about that, it has the burden of establishing the immunity defense.

Bixby v. KBR, INC.

748 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 22, 2010

The strategy and tactics employed on the battlefield are clearly not subject to judicial review.... … Unless they qualify as employees or agents of the Government, private contractors may not bootstrap the Government’s sovereign immunity. McMahon v.

Ragsdale v. Department of Revenue

321 Or. 216 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1995

In contrast, under Oregon Laws 1991, chapter 796, every state retiree who qualifies for benefits (based on years of service) will receive the benefits, regardless of the state retiree’s residency. … A tax rebate or tax benefit program only for state employees clearly would be impermissible. The Oregon law, however, is not a tax rebate program or a tax benefit. Everyone’s income is taxed equally.

Griffin v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Product Liability Trust

240 Or. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

In response, and in addition to the evidence set out above, plaintiffs attorney submitted an ORCP 47 E affidavit 2 averring that he had “retained unnamed expert witnesses who are qualified, willing and available to testify … We *146 decline to extend the raw material supplier doctrine articulated in Hoyt to immunize Union Carbide from potential liability. Reversed and remanded.