Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

Maney v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are protected by qualified immunity because there exists no clearly established precedent on the appropriate constitutional … Qualified immunity requires “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (citation omitted); see also Rosenbaum v.

Griffin v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORP. TRUST

240 Or. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Union Carbide contended nonetheless that plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his exposure to asbestos and Union Carbide asbestos fibers. … We decline to extend the raw material supplier doctrine articulated in Hoyt to immunize Union Carbide from potential liability. Reversed and remanded.

Dunn v. University of Oregon

9 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1881

An agent of the state, whether incorporated or not, by virtue of his character simply, possesses no such immunity from being sued. … We think these propositions are clearly established by the authorities cited, and in our view of the questions presented by the transcript, they are decisive in the case before us.

Stringer v. United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service)

63 F. Supp. 3d 1269 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 21, 2014

The state also did not establish that as a camper, plaintiffs’ use was limited to the piece of land associated with the charge.”) (emphasis added); see also Colin v. United States, No. … This Court reserves judgment as to whether either the camping fee or ski-lift fee qualify as - "charges” under ORS § 105.672(l)(a).

Castillo v. Bush

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bush is not entitled to qualified immunity because the law applicable to the consent and exigency exceptions was clearly established based on Randolph, supra, and Bonivert, supra, respectively

Lee v. State of Or.

891 F. Supp. 1421 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 1995

The 1995 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 2 which establishes OHSU as an independent public corporation. Its effective date was July 1, 1995. … Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to OHSU in its new status as a public corporation.

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 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

Boise Cascade Corp. v. State Board of Forestry

164 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1999

The form of the remedy did not qualify the right. It rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory recognition was not necessary. A promise to pay was not necessary. … Congress has the authority to subject it to suit in federal court. 9 “9 The Solicitor General urges that the prohibitory nature of the Fifth Amendment * * * combined with principles of sovereign immunity, establishes that

Wickman v. Housing Authority

196 Or. 100 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1952

These cases undoubtedly establish a national policy with reference to the non-immunization of national agencies and constitute a change in attitude toward them. … This state has never held ‘sue and be sued’ clauses established a waiver of immunity; its steadfast policy has been the exemption from liability of public corporations engaged in governmental duty, and the sub *117 mission

Foust v. Faust

District Court, D. Oregon · May 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.

Landgraver v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board, Inc.

203 Or. 489 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1955

Notwithstanding the immunity rule, the expense of such extensive inquiry into the nature and character of the institution will have to be borne by the charity before immunity can be established. … The proviso clearly limits the church corporations to the charitable or church activities specified. It neither adopts nor rejects the immunity doctrine.

Baker v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp.

241 Or. 609 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1965

Justice Douglas the court,, in language important to the case before us, said: “* * * Hence, when Congress established such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial *615 and business transactions with the public, … It clearly follows that subjecting defendant to ORS 736.325 does not mean that it could otherwise be regulated by the General Insurance Law.

Hancock v. Oregon Health And Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the official's conduct was not clearly established. Thompson v. … However, even if the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established, qualified immunity may still apply if a reasonable official could have believed his conduct was lawful. Id.

Espinosa v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

50 Or. App. 561 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1981

case arose, one of which removed a comma, entirely changing the meaning of the statutory language relied upon in Vendrell, 13 We have no need to determine whether this change was significant, because the Tort Claims Act clearly … Criticism of the testimony given by the train crew and of our report of it, even though the criticism is so meritorious that it entirely obliterates the crew’s testimony, does not establish that the crew did not maintain

Emery v. Oregon Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 23, 2024

“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.” White v. … In deciding whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the

State v. Castrejon

317 Or. 202 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1993

supra, 313 Or at 40. 6 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, cited by defendant, provides in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … It is, however, well established that federal due process, applied to state criminal trials, contains such a requirement. State v.