Case law

Botofan-Miller v. Miller

365 Or. 504 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2019

Sabin was qualified to make those projections based on what she observed." … Charlene Sabin was qualified to make the projections in this regard based on what she observed during the evaluation. "4.

Marr v. Putnam

196 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1952

an established shop.” … Had the article used the word “shop” without the qualifying adjective there might be merit in the defendants’ contention, for, while the plaintiffs undoubtedly had a shop, the question is whether they “operated” from an established

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.

Carey v. Siepmann

316 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

establish abuse of the privilege. … three opportunities to allege facts in their complaint sufficient to establish a claim but were unable to do so,” and plaintiffs have not assigned error to that ruling.

Roaring Springs Associates v. Andrus

471 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 14, 1978

I remain persuaded that those Findings and Recommendation speak clearly and correctly to the issues posed by the briefs for summary judgment. … barred nonetheless by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Keeley v. Evans

271 F. 520 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 14, 1921

Ed. 394 ), declares: “Its sole purpose was to declare to tbe several states that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise … Nor have complainant’s privileges and immunities been abridged, within the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Leveque v. Paulson

126 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 19, 1994

The court reiterated the well established rule that absolute immunity attaches to statements made by parties, witnesses or affiants during or incident to a judicial proceeding. 219 Or at 388 . … The allegedly defamatory statement appeared in a sentence suggesting that only less qualified expert witnesses, including plaintiff, were available to testify on Greene’s behalf.

Greisen v. Hanken

252 F. Supp. 3d 1042 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 12, 2017

The second step is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Thus, Greisen has satisfied step one of the qualified immunity analysis. b.

Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc.

366 Or. 628 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2020

qualify- ing as a legal injury remain liable.” … in Article IV, section 24, of the Oregon Constitution, “established sovereign immunity as a constitutional doctrine.”3 Rather, sovereign immunity was a common-law doctrine that “was part of this state’s law at the time of

Herbring v. Lee

126 Or. 588 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1928

The insurance commissioner, if he finds the agent qualified, shall thereupon issue to each such agent a license setting forth that such agent is entitled to act for the company appointing him for the balance of the current … It is further provided that the insurance commissioner shall thereupon issue to each such agent who is qualified a certificate setting forth that such agent is entitled to act for the company appointing him for the balance

Tubra v. Cooke

233 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 27, 2010

qualified privilege. … Unlike a situation where the Free Exercise Clause provides immunity from suit, cf. Mitchell v.

Nilsen v. DAVIDSON INDUSTRIES, INC.

226 Or. 164 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1961

Minimum safety standards are established, ORS 479.710 to 479.740, and labels for new electrical installations to be issued by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor required, ORS 479.550 to 479.570. … The offense and the penalty and the persons to whom they apply are expressly and clearly stated and it is simply a case where the defendants have misconstrued the exemption.

John v. City of Gresham

214 Or. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2007

Summary judgment based on discretionary immunity is appropriate only if the defendant establishes all of the elements of the defense as a matter of law. Sande v. … That decision, the court decided, was the one at issue and was a routine decision that did not qualify for discretionary immunity. 335 Or at 32-34 .

State v. Rodriguez

301 Or. App. 404 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2019

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, absent full immunity, I don’t think that that’s a proper—excuse me, but I don’t—absent full immunity, I don’t think he can be compelled to testify. … First, in briefing, and upon clarification at oral argument, the state does not argue that the immu- nity offered here for “driving crimes” qualifies as “transac- tional immunity” as required under Article I, section 12,

Advocates for School Trust Lands v. State of Oregon

346 Or. App. 668 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 2026

“Any interest may qualify as long as it is legally recognized,” id. at 555 (internal quotation marks omitted), and the interest may be affected indirectly—for example, an economic inter- est of a property owner may be affected … Plaintiffs assert that the schoolchildren plaintiffs have a qualifying interest in adequate funding for schools under the challenged laws pursuant to statutes that enti- tle and require them to attend school, ORS 339.010,

Irwin v. Ashurst

158 Or. 61 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1937

Irwin, to establish by a preponderance of the testimony, that Mr. … It was not necessary to admit all the words charged, in order to rely upon a plea of qualified privilege.

Little v. Wimmer

303 Or. 580 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1987

First, as we stated in Stevenson , “[t]he burden is on the state to establish its immunity. * * * [Evidence of how the decision was made is necessary.” 290 Or at 15 . … If it is a continuing non-decision which is in issue, then clearly the state has not met its burden to establish its immunity.

Box v. Oregon State Police

311 Or. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2021

We first address apparent authority immunity. B. … Further, the evidence establishes that Box did not, by custom or con- duct, manifest consent for the troopers’ entry apart from approaching the front door.

Tijerina v. Cornelius Christian Church

273 Or. 58 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1975

Nonetheless, the record is sufficient for us to determine that defendant’s land does not come within the limitations of duty established by ORS 105.665. … to owners of all land opened to recreation with the express purpose of avoiding a grant of immunity to all recreational land.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.

273 Or. 162 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1975

Oregon cases cited by defendant are clearly distinguishable from the fact situation at bar. … Defendant argues on appeal that plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action for indemnity because it did not plead ultimate facts to establish its own liability to the injured employe and because defendant is not liable