Case law

Carlin v. Manu

72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1999

established” one which would foreclose the defendants from qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Hunter v. Heath

95 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2000

Whether defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Analysis Defendants make only one argument in favor of qualified immunity, namely that they did not violate Hunter’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Moss v. United States Secret Service

750 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2010

For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible … Federal Defendants argue that they have qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ *1227 First Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time and the Federal Defendants’ conduct on that day was reasonable. (Fed.

Hammel v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation

955 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 28, 2013

The doctrine 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 reasonable person … Day would be entitled to qualified immunity if the proper standard were deliberate indifference. b) Clearly Established To avoid qualified immunity at step two, plaintiffs must show that the asserted right was clearly established

Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Recreation Department

347 Or. 94 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 24, 2009

ORS 105.688(2)(a) and (c) together require that, to qualify for immunity, a landowner must impose no fee to enter or use its land, except a fee of less than $75 per cord to use the land for woodcutting. … Because the state did not establish that it made “no charge for permission to use” Tugman Park, it did not establish that it was entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682 or that it was “entitled to prevail as a

American Humanist Ass'n v. United States

63 F. Supp. 3d 1274 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if plaintiffs have a cognizable Bivens claim, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, Qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where they “reasonably could have believed that their conduct was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information that they possessed.’ ” Cohen v.

Schlossberg v. Solesbee

844 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 18, 2012

was no clearly established Fourth Amendment right to the contents of electronic devices. … Qualified immunity protects government official from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Scott v. Jackson County

244 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2011

Absent a violation of a ‘clearly established [constitutional] standard[ ],’ we need not discuss qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 US 194 , 208, 121 S Ct 2151 , 150 L Ed 2d 272 (2001).” 297 Fed. … This must be the initial inquiry. * * * “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Beason v. Harcleroad

105 Or. App. 376 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1991

Two types of official immunity are recognized in claims under section 1983: qualified and absolute. Qualified *382 immunity is the norm for state executive officials, such as prosecutors. … or qualified immunity.

Pelster Ex Rel. Boyer v. Walker

185 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2001

qualified immunity.” … Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Even if Plaintiffs could establish a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the undisputed facts.

Canell v. Oregon Department of Justice

811 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 11, 1993

Nor is a defendant who is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged constitutional violations stripped of that immunity merely because his conduct violates clearly settled state law. Davis v. … Qualified Immunity: Defendants may still escape liability for damages if they satisfy the test for qualified immunity.

State v. Berringer

234 Or. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 2010

In the motion to suppress, defendant argued that probable cause to arrest him dissipated once he showed the arresting Clackamas County deputy a document establishing that defendant, a California resident, was qualified to … The CCUA establishes (again, at most) rights between qualified California residents and the State of California — not the State of Oregon.

Plumb v. Prinslow

847 F. Supp. 1509 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity: Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff had no clearly established right to be released prior to the date his original sentence (i.e., the sentence pronounced by the … Defendants Faatz and John Does 3-10, members of the Board of Parole, are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Wright

432 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 1976

All federal defendants are entitled to dismissal or summary judgment based on the principle of qualified official immunity. The established and disputed facts are set forth first by way of background. … QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY The federal defendants contend, first, that the principles set forth in Barr v.

Samuelson v. Oregon State University

162 F. Supp. 3d 1123 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2016

Riley is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining if an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts look at two issues; (1) whether the plaintiff alleged facts establishing the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) “whether the right is clearly

C.O. v. Portland Public Schools

406 F. Supp. 2d 1157 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 22, 2005

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their' conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Defendants’ request for qualified immunity, based on Pat Oman’s failure to plead violation of clearly established constitutional and statutory rights, is denied.

Fields v. City of Newport

326 Or. App. 764 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

We will not repeat the details of that here, other than to highlight that recreational immunity was established by the legisla- ture as a “quid pro quo” policy. Id. at 294. … ORS 105.688(1)(c) extends immunity to unim- proved, nonrecreational access trails that, under Liberty, would not have qualified for recreational immunity.

Leontiev v. Corbett Sch. Dist.

333 F. Supp. 3d 1054 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 2018

"clearly established." … Moreover, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Gibson

918 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 2013

Johnson concedes the City is immune from liability under the Act but argues that Defendants do not qualify as “owners” under the Act and, therefore, are not entitled to protection under the Act. … In Storm , the Supreme Court again recognized the lack of clearly established and consistent case law regarding the Remedy Clause identified in Smothers and specifically-rejected the absence of a distinction between rights

Canell v. State

185 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 27, 2002

high level of public authority; routine decisions that every employee must make, even when they require judgment, do not qualify for discretionary immunity). … Myers, 169 Or App 472, 478 , 10 P3d 265 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 692 (2001) (outlining what a plaintiff must demonstrate to establish negligence per se).