Case law

Westfall v. State

266 Or. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 2014

He contends that Oregon courts have not “clearly decided” whether discretionary immunity should apply to intentional torts and, distinguishing the cases on which the department relied, contends that “[a]t best *** discretionary … Thus, because plaintiff cannot challenge the propriety of the PTA’s calculation of his release date, he cannot establish, as he must to prevail on his false-imprisonment claim, that the department “intentionally kept [him

Allison v. Washington County

24 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1976

The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of sovereign immunity. … The facts were established by the pleadings.

Larson v. Carpenter

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, even under the line of cases recognizing this clearly established due process right, plaintiff cannot evade qualified immunity.

Certain Underwriters v. TNA NA Manufacturing

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2024

Oregon law establishes that “a presump- tion will be indulged against an intention to contract for immunity from the consequence of one’s own negligence.” Waterway Terminals v. P.S. … “A contract will not be construed to provide immunity from consequences of a party’s own negligence unless that inten- tion is clearly and unequivocally expressed[.]”

Morse v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2024

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas- Villegas v. … The Court finds, as a matter of law, that Chief Brown’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right and that his conduct is therefore protected under qualified immunity.

Senn v. Smith

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 19, 2021

Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity protects an official from reasonable mistakes about the legality of his actions. Wilkins v. … of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court will consider whether that right was clearly established on October 12, 2016.

U S West Communications, Inc. v. MFS Intelenet, Inc.

35 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 1998

State immunity under the Eleventh Amendment extends to state agencies such as the PUC, and to state officials such as the defendant commissioners who act on the state’s behalf and who can assert a state’s sovereign immunity … Regardless of what other remedies U S West is seeking, it clearly seeks review of the Agreement as provided under the Act.

Certain Underwriters v. TNA NA Manufacturing

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2024

Oregon law establishes that “a presump- tion will be indulged against an intention to contract for immunity from the consequence of one’s own negligence.” Waterway Terminals v. P.S. … “A contract will not be construed to provide immunity from consequences of a party’s own negligence unless that inten- tion is clearly and unequivocally expressed[.]”

Nearing v. Weaver

295 Or. 702 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1983

Helikson, 277 Or 781 , 562 P2d 540 (1977), in which plaintiffs legal interest also was established by a specific court order designed to protect plaintiff against the very harm that occurred. … Nonetheless it clearly gave rise to a duty of defendants toward the plaintiffs under the 1977 act.

Portland Police Ass'n v. Civil Service Board

292 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1982

Justice Larsen dissented, saying: “The overriding question to be asked here is whether this Court is going to permit a Commission established by the legislature to ‘enact’ rules contrary to those established by the legislature … And, clearly, the Commission itself was not given any authority in the Act to remedy all of society’s ills on its own.” 412 A2d at 879 .

Harrington v. City of Portland

677 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 23, 1987

claim should be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Mayor Clark’s motion to dismiss Harrington’s claims based on qualified immunity is denied.

Mesch v. Unity Center for Behavioral Health

349 Or. App. 463 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2026

Here, because defendants would have had the burden to establish their defense of statutory immunity at trial, see, e.g., Franke v. … Did defendants establish ORS 426.335(5) immunity as a matter of law? 1. The legal standard set by ORS 426.335(5).

Eaton v. Blewett

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 24, 2024

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. … 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

Sitbon v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 23, 2025

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 … Moreover, the qualified immunity analysis looks to law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged rights violation. See, e.g., Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 970.

Chamberlain v. City of Portland

184 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 2002

That discussion of the issue disposes of plaintiff’s claim that WThisler did not occupy a position qualifying her for the privilege. … The cases, then, in harmony with well-established definitions of the term “officer,” demonstrate that sworn city police officers, under appropriate circumstances, qualify for the absolute privilege.

State v. Little

241 Or. 557 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1965

Therefore, the defendant argues, the legislature intended to make persons under sixteen immune from criminal liability. … However, under ORS 419.533 (1) (c), an intent to permit the juvenile court to remand a child at some future time is clearly expressed in the section.

State v. Shevyakov

311 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 2021

Both assignments of error are predicated on the same basic theory: that ORS 475.898 ren- dered him immune from prosecution for those crimes. … Here, the face of the information states an offense; defendant’s claim that he is entitled to immu- nity from the offenses charged does not mean that the facts alleged fail to establish a crime.

Board of Klamath County Commissioners v. Select County Employees

148 Or. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1997

By the terms of the contract and the personnel manual, Engelhard is responsible for certifying that all new county employees are qualified and for terminating all county employees. … Magnuson, 282 Or 433, 437 , 578 P2d 1259 (1978) (characterizing such activities as “discretionary” for purposes of immunity from tort liability); see also Stevenson v.

Stone v. Finnerty

182 Or. App. 452 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 2002

Rather, immunity under the statute is dependant on the nature of the “legal injury.” Id. … ‘Other jurisdictions have recognized that not all harms occasioned by the employment relationship qualify as compensable injuries under the Act.

Atlas Foundry & MacHine Co. v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 200 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 29, 1965

The legislative history of P.L. 86-272 clearly indicates that it was the intention of Congress to declare that a taxable nexus was established in the host state if a sales office was maintained in that state. *204 The Talmadge … Amendment eliminated a paragraph from the original bill which would have granted immunity to a sales office.