Case law

State v. Eby

296 Or. 63 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1983

When you gave immunity to Paul Bigornia, did you give him immunity for murder? “A. No. “Q. Did you give him immunity for robbery? “A. No. “Q. What did you give him immunity for? “A. … This case is clearly distinguishable from State v. Middleton, 295 Or 485 , 668 P2d 371 (1983). In Middleton , the fact that the witness took and passed a polygraph was admitted.

Sinclair v. Blewett

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 2, 2024

In concluding the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, the court noted: Plaintiffs have provided no precedent, and the Court has found none, to suggest that Defendants violated any clearly … established constitutional right, and qualified immunity will be granted on that basis.”

Anselmo v. Target Corp.

340 Or. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 2025

of the party’s attorney stating that an unnamed qualified expert has been retained who is available and willing to testify to admissible facts or opinions creating a question of fact will be deemed sufficient … Miller, 196 Or App 354, 358, 103 P3d 112 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 488 (2005) (“The inference need not inevitably follow from the established facts; rather, if the established facts support multiple reasonable infer- ences,

State v. Clark

291 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1981

It also was early established that the guarantee reaches forbidden inequality in the administration of laws under delegated authority as well as in legislative enactments. White v. … Denial of immunity.

Libertarian Party of Oregon v. Roberts

305 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1988

The LPO asserts that the statutes are unconstitutional because the state has failed to establish the existence of countervailing state interests sufficient to justify the “burdens” placed upon these rights. … The LPO has not raised them and has not alleged that its candidates are qualified or could qualify for the ballot by methods other than minor-party recognition.

Paul

District Court, D. Oregon · May 25, 2026

Qualified Immunity (Defendants Kelly & Peters) The State Defendants argue that Defendants Kelly and Peters (acting in their individual capacities) are entitled to qualified immunity because “[r]easonable … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the

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.

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.

Nunez v. Jones

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 20, 2019

on the issue of qualified immunity. … A defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to a dismissal before discovery unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim that violates clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

Garcia III v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 5, 2020

Nonetheless, defendants argue that qualified immunity defeats plaintiff’s claim. 3 - OPINION AND ORDER “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not … Accordingly, it was not clearly established that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights would be violated by exposure to a warm decontamination shower in these circumstances, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Mathisen v. Oregon Health and Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2023

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 … As previously noted, qualified immunity is only an immunity from damages; it is not an immunity from declaratory or injunctive relief. L.A.

Pelster Ex Rel. Boyer v. Walker

185 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 20, 2001

The Court requests supplemental briefing concerning Defendants’ qualified immunity defense to specifically address the two-step analysis set forth in Saucier v. … Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Requires Further Briefing Individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.

Darmody v. Clatsop County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 1, 2024

his conduct violated a clearly established right. … Alternatively, Defendant Parks is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official in his position would not have been on notice that his conduct violated a clearly established right.

Craig

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2026

“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 … 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

McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept.

366 Or. 452 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 2020

The Court of Appeals reversed, McCormick, 293 Or App at 201, relying on a case that it had issued the same day, land is privately held, as long as the water is ‘navigable in a qualified or limited sense.’ … That understanding of “permit” is supported by the context of ORS 105.682, specifically, by ORS 105.676, which establishes that the purpose of the rec- reational immunity statutes is to encourage owners to make their lands

Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University

359 Or. 168 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

Given our cases, it is difficult to describe Lakin as either “settled” or “well-established” precedent. … Plaintiff focuses her argument instead on the second independent clause, which is qualified by a dependant clause.

First Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 249 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 4, 1963

Immunity from taxes on the ground of being a public charity is an affirmative defense and the burden of establishing the eleemosynary character of an institution is upon the party asserting it. Ackerman v. … Clearly, the construction of "owned" in this statute as referring only to legal title does not appear unreasonable from the language itself.

United States v. Oregon State Bar

385 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 25, 1974

(A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee. … But I am clearly of opinion, that such is not the true sense of the word, as used in the 32d section.

State v. Shinkle

231 Or. 528 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1962

We begin with the established doctrine that the state of Oregon is not subject to suit except as the *530 legislature has otherwise provided. As we recently-noted in Vendrell v. … Article IV, § 24, Oregon Constitution, clearly ordains that where the action is brought against the state the negligence of the state’s servants will not be imputed to the state unless the legislative assembly *535 elects

Jenkins v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 28, 2025

clearly established at the time the action was taken.” … Here, plaintiff has failed to carry the heavy burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated a “clearly established” right and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Jimenez-Mendez v.