Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,059 results
1.82s
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
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 2021
Qualified immunity shields officials for mistakes of fact as well as of law. … Thus, even when a right is clearly established, an official may be entitled to qualified immunity because the full contours of the right in the circumstances faced by the official were unclear. Kennedy v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSawyer v. Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center
District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 21, 2020
summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, because “there was no clearly established legal precedent showing that either taking I.S. into protective custody under the appurtenant facts was not constitutionally-sufficient … On a second appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the detective was entitled to qualified immunity, in part because “no clearly established law existed to guide [the d]etective[,]” where “[h]e was confronted with a physician
Cited 0 timesUnknown205 Or. 624 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1955
Co., et al., supra, a portion of the alleged libel came within the doctrine of qualified privilege. … The court said that the evidence clearly disclosed a privileged communication.
Cited 25 timesPublished306 Or. 347 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1988
Restatement (Second) Torts § 895F (1979) provides: “(1) A husband or wife is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. “(2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish … that, “whatever may be our views we do not feel justified in declining to accept it as the established law of this state.”
Cited 33 timesPublishedDistrict 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknown243 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2002
To qualify for discretionary immunity under ORS S0.265(3)(c), the city must show that it made a decision “involving the making of policy” as opposed to a “routine decisionf ] made by employees in the course of their day-to-day … The burden is on the governmental defendant to establish its immunity. Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswego, 335 Or. 19, 31 , 56 P.3d 396, 403 (2002) (citations omitted).
Cited 1 timesPublishedHall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
947 F. Supp. 1387 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 1996
Even if the proponents meet their burden of establishing that an expert’s testimony qualifies as scientific knowledge, the court must still exclude the evidence if it does not “fit” the matters at issue in the case. … Clearly these results bear on the matter at hand. Whether or not a masters thesis constitutes a peer-reviewed publication is clearly a matter of debate.
Cited 68 timesPublished369 Or. 555 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2022
documents are rel- evant and admissible for [defendant’s] defense,” but argued that, because defendant “seeks to make selective use of sup- pressed evidence and lead the jury to inaccurate inferences,” that “evidence would clearly … that the defense arguments permitted by paragraph (3) would mis- lead the trier of fact and open the door to permit the state to call Johnston to testify, the state argues that, “[a]s a general matter, it is well established
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2024
Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity, even if they violate an individual's constitutional rights, 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2020
If there were a constitutional violation, a government official may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Feb 4, 2025
“[I]n 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, other … Given all of the clearly established caselaw, the Court rejects Defendants’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2021
a clearly established constitutional right. … “Whether qualified immunity can be invoked turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the official’s acts.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSanta Fe Natural Tabacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev.
25 Or. Tax 124 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 23, 2022
Id. at 382 (also stating that “activities such as warranty work, that serve an independent business purpose apart from the solicitation of orders for sales, do not qualify for immunity under PL 86-272.”). … , depending on whether that activ- ity “establishes a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State.”
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Oregon · Jul 29, 2025
At minimum, Defendant Sundquist is entitled to qualified immunity. … “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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSornson v. Oregon Commission on Children
887 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 13, 2012
ORS 182.454, in turn, lists eleven agencies which qualify as “semi-independent state agencies”. OCCF is not listed as one of the eleven agencies. … Based on the plain language of the statute, ORS 182.466 clearly does not apply to OCCF, let alone establish that OCCF may sue or be sued. Accordingly, the third Mitchell Factor does not weigh in Plaintiffs favor. 4.
Cited 0 timesPublished217 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 2, 2002
Puerini is entitled to qualified immunity. *1115 1. Claim Preclusion Defendants contend that plaintiffs present complaint is precluded by earlier state court litigation. … Because of this disposition, I decline to address defendants’ qualified immunity argument. CONCLUSION Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (# 32) is GRANTED.
Cited 1 timesPublished579 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”
Cited 3 timesPublishedFrye v. Public Employes Retirement System
67 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1984
statutes do not provide for return of contributions to a judge who has not qualified for benefits. … some rights to recover the contributions of judges who do not qualify for benefits.
Cited 1 timesPublishedBudget Rent-A-Car of Washington-Oregon, Inc. v. Multnomah County
287 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1979
Dept., which gave such commerce a degree of "free trade” immunity from state taxes, see 430 US at 278-279 ; but it is not necessarily discriminatory. … power comprised in that general authority were specifically listed in ORS 203.030 to 203.065. "(2) The power granted by this section is in addition to other grants of power to counties, shall not be construed to limit or qualify
Cited 28 timesPublished
Ask Donna