Case law

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,

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

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.

Kelly v. Hochberg

349 Or. 267 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010

Although a person certainly may hike on a road, nothing in the statute suggests that hiking is the only outdoor activity on a road that would qualify as a “recreational purpose” within the meaning of ORS 105.672(5). … The TMP notes that BLM “is not a public road authority and cannot dedicate public roads” and that BLM roads do not fit the criteria for public roads established by the United States Secretary of Transportation. *277 Regarding

Waggoner v. City of Woodburn

196 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2004

To effectuate that policy, ORS 105.682 establishes, as we have noted, immunity from tort liability for “any personal injury * * * that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes * * * when the owner of [the … If the legislature wished to deprive urban property holders of qualified immunity, it could have easily done so. It is not our role as a court to rewrite the plain language of a state statute.”).

Crandall v. State of Oregon

374 Or. 699 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2026

In this case, the common-law model clearly provides a remedy for the alleged breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care. … See ORS 656.012 (establishing the work- ers’ compensation system to provide benefits and medical care regardless of fault).

Stevenson v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation

290 Or. 3 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1980

We noted that our prior case law had established that public employes were not liable for negligently performing a discretionary function, and identified two possible reasons for the doctrine of public employes’ immunity: … The burden is on the state to establish its immunity. In some instances, the nature of the function alone is sufficient to establish immunity. In other instances, evidence of how the decision was made is necessary.

Winn v. Gilroy

296 Or. 718 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1984

Sorrentino, 248 NY 626 , 162 NE 551 (1928), and the qualified phrasing of the rule in other jurisdictions. 189 Or at 296-301 . … Instead, the Restatement propounded the rule as follows: “(1) A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. “(2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish

LaTulippe v. Oregon Medical Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2025

As set out below, however, they are entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to show the OMB staff members violated clearly established law.

Khimich v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 2024

Judge You found that plaintiff failed to establish that the Doe defendants violated a clearly established right and that qualified immunity therefore barred plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Doe defendants. … established right and dismissed claims on the basis of qualified immunity.

Araujo v. General Electric Information Services

82 F. Supp. 2d 1161 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 4, 2000

This qualified immunity may be lost if the publisher does not believe or lacks reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the alleged defamatory statement; if the defamatory matter is published for a purpose other than … immunity that generally applies to an employer’s own disclosures under such circumstances.

State v. Soriano

68 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 13, 1984

The New York Court of Appeals stated this position clearly in People ex rel Hockley v. … falls short of that constitutionally-required minimum. 20 First of all, use and derivative use immunity does not clearly protect against non-evidentiary as well as evidentiary *663 use of the immunized testimony.

Deschutes River Alliance v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co.

323 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 11, 2018

The 2005 License also establishes Implementation Committees-a component of the Relicensing Settlement Agreement-including a Fish Committee. Id. at ¶ 31 . … It thus seems clear that the text and history of the RCRA clearly indicates congressional intent to abrogate the Tribe's sovereign immunity with respect to violations of the RCRA.

Neumann v. Liles

261 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 12, 2014

We take the same approach here, both to be consistent with Young and because the trial court’s determination that the online business review at issue qualifies as a protected activity under ORS 31.150(2) is not clearly erroneous … , or showing that he abused that qualified privilege.

Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington

967 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2013

The party asserting sovereign immunity has the “burden of proving the facts that establish its immunity.” ITSI T.V. Prods., Inc. v. Agric. Assocs., 3 F.3d 1289 , 1292 (9th Cir.1993). … June 7, 2010), the court, relying on a Florida Supreme Court case, held that determining whether “a governmental action qualifies as a discretionary governmental process,” which Florida exempted from a waiver of immunity,

Conklin

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 12, 2026

Garnand, 83 F.4th 743, 753 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that the plaintiff has the “burden to identify the clearly established law”). Krishnaswami is entitled to qualified immunity for Claim 2. Claims 1, 3, and 4. … Those allegations also do not make out a clearly established constitutional violation. The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Claim 3.

Woodward Stuckart, LLC v. United States

973 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2013

Therefore, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Bridge Creek Fire qualified for WFU management. … The facts clearly establish that the Bridge Creek Fire blew up quickly and unexpectedly. On August 14, 2008, the Fire was only .25 acres in size; plaintiffs’ complaint acknowledges this fact. See Compl. ¶ 49.

Estate of Chase Brooks v. City of Springfield

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 2024

Button, 810 F.3d 609, 615 (9th Cir. 2015) (“If indeed the…officers did not violate clearly established law, then we can determine that qualified immunity is appropriate and may thus dispose of the case without undertaking … That case provides a thoughtful and compelling history of qualified immunity. Id. at *1. But as that case itself acknowledges, “qualified immunity is the law of the land.” Id. at *19.

State v. Savastano

243 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2011

. *588 The law governing standardless distribution of privileges and immunities under Article I, section 20, is well settled. … of a city ordinance, as opposed to a state law (the constitutionally significant privilege in Bruner), the privileges or immunities faced by defendant here are clearly of constitutional magnitude.

State v. Smith

127 Or. 680 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1928

It only establishes a rule of evidence by which qualifications to practice medicine and surgery is to be determined. … Any citizen may qualify himself in the manner pointed out by the law, and the privilege to so qualify is denied to no one.