Case law

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.

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.

Buchler v. State Ex Rel. Oregon Corrections Division

104 Or. App. 547 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 12, 1990

The state has the burden to establish immunity. Little v. Wimmer, 303 Or 580, 588 , 739 P2d 564 (1987). After this case was argued, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Lowrimore v. … A traffic officer’s decision to pursue a vehicle * * *, [although discretionary in the sense that it involves the exercise of judgment and choice by the officer, is not one that qualifies its maker to immunity under ORS 30.265

Hofer v. OHSU

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

But OHSU did not raise qualified privilege in its summary judgment motion, and its reference to qualified privilege in this court is factually and legally underdeveloped and does not provide a basis to affirm. … State of Oregon, 320 Or App 406, 410 n 4, 514 P3d 1131 (2022) (explaining that qualified immunity had not been raised in the state’s motion for summary judgment and that the state’s undeveloped qualified immunity argument

Strader v. Grange Mutual Insurance

179 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2002

That certificate demonstrates that defendant has satisfied the Director that it qualifies for the exemption from the Insurance Code. ORS 731.042(3). … A review of the evidence clearly shows that the parties did not agree upon the amount in dispute.” Defendant might also have cited Dale’s Sand & Gravel v.

Twin Rocks Watseco Defense Committee v. Sheets

15 Or. App. 445 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 3, 1973

However, the same statutes establish a basic outline and provide certain minimum standards with which each county zoning ordinance must comply. … A permittee who delayed construction in the face of an impending amendment to the zoning laws might find that he had not progressed far enough in time to qualify for immunity; one who proceeded with unseemly haste ran the

State v. Tucker

51 L.R.A. 246 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1900

The facts upon which it is founded illustrate very clearly the situation attending the present controversy. … Justice Lord, speaking for the court, says: “In a general sense, to ‘modify’ means to change or vary, to qualify or reduce; and unless there is something in the context, or special usage, the words are to be taken in their

DeLong Corporation v. Oregon State Highway Com'n

233 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 24, 1964

The language of the Oregon Supreme Court clearly recognizes that a suit against the Highway Commission, and its members, is to be viewed as a suit against the state. 23 Persuasive in a study of the status of the commission … This principle is established and clearly stated in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1899) and Ex parte New York, 256 U.S. 490 , 41 S.Ct. 588 , 65 L. Ed. 1057 (1921).

Cato v. Alcoa-Reynolds Metals Co.

210 Or. App. 721 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 2007

But it does establish that they had done so for a least one year before the onset of Sworden’s bladder cancer. The record also establishes that Sworden and Cato had a son as a result of their relationship. … It clearly impliefs] that benefits would ordinarily cease when a child other than an invalid dependent child reache [s] age 18.

Ag West Supply v. Hall

126 Or. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 1994

The amendments also include an exemption from the gallonage requirements: “Any person who was a customer of a facility that is issued a license under ORS 480.350 and was a customer on and since June 30, 1991, and who qualifies … The plaintiffs, a Vietnam veteran and his wife who had established residence in New Mexico in 1981, challenged the law as a violation of their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Babiy v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 22, 2024

The second step is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. Courts have discretion to assess either prong of the qualified immunity test first. Id. at 236. … “‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Johnson v.

Jimenez-Mendez v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 29, 2024

The Clearly Established Right Test Cannot Be Applied at a High Level of Generality It is a heavy burden to prove a clearly established right for the purposes of qualified immunity. … did not have a clearly established right.

ANDERSON Ex Rel POE v. GLADDEN

205 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1955

Assuming but not conceding that the first affirmative reply stated only issuable facts and not conclusions of law, it is clearly insufficient. … They do not show that he was “present, qualified and able to sit” on 28 July 1932 when defendant was sentenced.

Jones v. Kitzhaber

212 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 10, 2002

, and the state officials have qualified immunity. … The burden is on plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction, to clearly allege facts that establish standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

Segura v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 2022

The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendation, with the exception of the portion discussing whether the law on failure to intervene is clearly established for purposes of Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. … Defendants rely on an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision to argue that when an officer must intercede is not clearly established and thus Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Penaloza v.

Neher v. Chartier

319 Or. 417 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1994

This court’s case law throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries interpreting Article I, section 10, likewise has failed definitively to establish and consistently to apply any one theory regarding the protections … who are personally responsible for harm qualifying as a legal injury remain hable.

Smith v. Airbnb, Inc.

316 Or. App. 378 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

Airbnb moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other points, that under CDA 230, “Airbnb cannot be held liable for the content, or lack of content, on defendant Dennis’s listing, as a matter of established law.” … service qualifying for CDA immunity is an online messag- ing board (or bulletin board) on which Internet subscribers post comments and respond to comments posted by others.” Dyroff v.

Bruner v. Josephine County

240 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

See Friends of Yamhill County, 237 Or App at 177-78 (explaining the relevant factors used to establish a “common law vested right” under section 5(3) of Measure 49). … Whether zoning permissions have ripened to a degree sufficient to immunize the use from regulatory controls is tested by the “common law vested right” doctrine referenced in section 5(3) of Measure 49.

Pitcher v. Garrett

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 5, 2021

Qualified Immunity County Defendants also argue that Ganger is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity, however, is only an immunity from suit for damages, it is not an immunity from suit for declaratory or injunctive relief. See L.A. Police Protective League v.

Schmitz

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2025

But a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994), to argue that “[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.”