Case law

Mann v. McCullough

174 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 20, 2001

for immunity under ORS 30.265(3)(c). … “The burden is on the state to establish its immunity. In some instances, the nature of the function alone is sufficient to establish immunity.

Mustola v. Toddy

253 Or. 658 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1969

not a conversion, or so narrow as to exclude conduct which clearly is.” ③ The first Restatement of Torts was guilty of the same semantic fault. … This is a part of the larger problem of establishing the scope of the privilege or immunity for governmental officers. ⑤ *667 The problem is concisely stated in 2 Harper & James on Torts, § 29.10, pp. 1640, 1641-42 (1956)

McCollough v. Portland State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2024

by him.9 Consequently, application of a clear and convincing standard was not clearly established and “beyond debate,” and Jeffords is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … established to put the individual Defendants on notice so as to defeat qualified immunity.”); Hunt v.

Ernst v. City of Eugene

903 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2012

“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 … To ascertain whether qualified immunity applies, the court determines whether a deprivation of a constitutional right occurred and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation, though not necessarily

Robinson v. Omark Industries, Inc.

46 Or. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 1980

Defendant alleged that workers’ compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy and that it was therefore immune from tort liability. … That does not establish that either was plaintiff’s only employer; it establishes that both were plaintiff’s employers.

McLean v. Pine Eagle School District, No. 61

194 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 2016

Officials and employees of the government (including a school district) are entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless they violate a constitutional right that “was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Thus, all individual Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Barror v. City of Saint Helens

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 18, 2024

A clearly established right is "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood 2 Defendants' answer asserts qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, negating any potential issue of waiver. … Further, "'[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.'" Doerle v.

Kane v. Kulongoski

318 Or. 593 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1994

Health care providers may opt out, are immune from civil, criminal liability for good faith compliance. Criminal penalties for violations.” … Petitioners Myers et al argue that the certified question is deficient because “[t]he chief purpose [of the proposed measure] is clearly to remove criminal sanctions to doctor assisted suicide.”

Szanto v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Szanto)

574 B.R. 862 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jun 13, 2017

However, “the right to sue as established by Bivens is qualified and is not absolute.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). … . § 106 governs sovereign immunity as it applies in bankruptcy.

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.

State v. Capwell

64 Or. App. 710 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1983

The state argued that the circumstances surrounding the confession established that it was voluntarily given. … The court, however, found that, taken as a whole, the evidence established that the confession was induced by an implied promise of immunity from prosecution.

Neher v. Chartier

124 Or. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1993

responsible for harm qualifying as a legal injury remain liable. … Defendants counter that the protection of Article I, section 10, applies only to rights established at common law, see Stewart v.

Smejkal v. STATE EX REL. DAS.

239 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2010

Statutory obligations of governments can become contractual in nature when the statute clearly announces *560 that the obligation is immune from statutory change. The court observed in Campbell et al. v. … It is also equally well established that the intention of the legislature thus to create contractual obligations, resulting in extinguishment to a certain extent of governmental powers, must clearly and unmistakably appear

Young v. State of Oregon

346 Or. 507 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

The question was not whether the county in Seton was obligated to pay such interest; it clearly was. … When the legislature waived state immunity for its torts and enacted the Oregon Tort Claims Act, it clearly assumed that the state would be liable for interest that accrued on unpaid judgments.

Smith Kline & French v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 532 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 24, 1964

A corporation qualified to do business in Oregon pays a certain amount of excise tax. … Furthermore, by prohibiting certain state taxation Congress creates an exemption or immunity, not merely a regulation.

Stedman v. Dept. of Forestry

316 Or. App. 203 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 2021

“(b) An all-terrain vehicle decal issued under this sec- tion must be permanently affixed to the vehicle and dis- played in a clearly visible manner. … Cite as 316 Or App 203 (2021) 207 “(5) The department shall establish by rule a fee for a permit issued or renewed under this section.

Sessions v. Hunt

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 24, 2024

After that, “in the absence of binding precedent, [courts] look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts … Plaintiff, however, also fails to meet his burden at the second Saucier step to show that the law was clearly established. Plaintiff points to no case law in arguing that qualified immunity applies.

Lovell v. School District No. 13

172 Or. 500 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1943

VIII, § 3, of the Constitution of Oregon, it is the function of government to establish and maintain public schools. … Statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed and the intention to impose such liability must, therefore, be clearly expressed.

In Re Christensen

167 B.R. 213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 29, 1994

It has been suggested that quasi-judicial actors should be given only qualified immunity from suit instead of absolute immunity. See Watts v. Burkhart, 978 F.2d 269, 278 (6th Cir.1992) (Martin, J., dissenting). … Although those decisions have now been found wanting, Respondent did not violate Appellant’s clearly established rights, constitutional or otherwise.

Gibson v. United States (In Re Gibson)

176 B.R. 910 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Oct 5, 1994

Clearly, by filing its proof the Internal Revenue Service falls within the parameters of the statutory waiver of either § 106(a) or (b). … It had no reason to raise the issue of immunity.