Case law

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.

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.

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.

Ragsdale v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 440 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 1990

It found that it established a new principle of law by overruling prior precedent. This court finds that Davis v. Michigan was a case of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. … The Davis case established a new principle pertaining to intergovernmental immunity which was not clearly foreshadowed by prior decisions. *445 The second test of Chevron is: Will retrospective operation further or retard

Gomez v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims because it was not clearly established that providing a hot—rather … “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

Steamboaters v. Winchester Water Control District

69 Or. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 1984

It clearly specified the interests which were not to be impaired. … WPRB, by adopting temporary rules in another case — the Galesville Dam proceeding — but not in the present case has violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the Equal Privileges and Immunities

United Contracting Co. v. Duby

134 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1930

The same principle is *17 very clearly expressed in the following much quoted language taken from Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. … He is bound to establish it. The state is a political corporate body, can act only through agents, and can command only by laws.

Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Spokesman Publishing Co.

127 Or. 196 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1928

It must be conceded that the evidence introduced by defendant is sufficient to establish that plaintiff is doing business within the state. The evidence was *201 uncontradicted. … We are of the opinion that plaintiff is not deprived of the right of access to our courts because it transacted other business in the state without having paid the required license fee and otherwise qualifying to do intrastate

Johnson v. SAIF Corp.

343 Or. 139 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2007

* * immunity.” … those in favor of immunity. 9 C.

Nemo v. City of Portland

910 F. Supp. 491 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 12, 1995

entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions. … Although the qualified immunity and good faith defenses are quite similar, “[bjeneath the nomenclature lie considerations of substance.” Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 173 , 112 S.Ct. at 1836 (J. Kennedy, concurring).

Reyes

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 2026

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity, the court evaluates, in no particular order, whether: (1) the alleged misconduct violated a right; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Meshell v. Steward

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants alternatively argue they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Meshell’s claims. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

State v. Hartman

5 Or. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 1971

It clearly arose from an independent origin. In Wong Sun v. … Such a distinction would allow an aura of protection to follow a prime suspect and immunize independent criminal actors engaged in offenses having no nexus with the crime previously committed by the focal suspect.

Alba v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … When analyzing a qualified-immunity question, the court applies a two-step process.

State ex rel. Sopher v. Washington

233 Or. App. 228 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 20, 2010

Moreover, that amendment, by its terms, is not qualified in regard to whether such persons were convicted of aggravated murder committed when they were adults or when they were juveniles. See Engweiler v. … Relator contends that, contrary to the trial court’s understanding, he clearly was challenging, on numerous grounds, the board’s application of the rules to him.

Sato v. Hanlon (In re Hanlon)

557 B.R. 801 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2016

Contrary to Plaintiffs conclusory argument, the Court could find no authority which holds that common-law domestic partners are “married” or qualify as each other’s spouses. … App. 451, 455 , 773 P.2d 394, 396 (1989) (privilege and immunities clause), within the relevant time-frame.

Miller v. Hedlund

579 F. Supp. 116 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 24, 1984

Plaintiffs are establishments that purchase beer and wine from wholesalers and sell beer and wine at retail. … Midcal, supra, sets out a two-part test for determining whether Parker immunity should apply to a state scheme: First, the challenged restraint must be “one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy”

Pettibone v. Biden, Jr.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 2021

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 … The law was therefore clearly established with respect to less lethal munitions and qualified immunity is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings. iv.

Toohey v. Aviation Adventures, LLC

269 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 2015

One of those exceptions is “[i]f the negligence of [the coworker] is a substantial factor in causing the injury * * * and the negligence occurs outside of the capacity that qualifies the person for exemption under this section … causal link between Ketcheson’s employment and Toohey’s injury because (1) Ketcheson was not working for Wyndham while flying and (2) Ketcheson’s conduct in flying the plane was so unreasonable that a causal link cannot be established