Case law

Phillips v. Hust

338 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2004

Qualified Immunity 1. … Constitutional right was clearly established The next, sequential step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the constitutional right of access *1162 to the courts was “clearly established.” Id.

State v. Randolph

17 L.R.A. 470 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1892

Both proceed upon the hypothesis that the act grants privileges or immunities to one class of persons while it denies the same privileges or immunities to another class. … The act does not grant privileges or immunities to any citizen or class of citizens either within or without the state; it only establishes a rule of evidence by which qualification to practice medicine and surgery is to

Schutz v. La Costita Iii, Inc.

364 Or. 536 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2019

(concluding that stepfather buying drinks for stepson in public tavern qualified as social host). … Regardless, the current pleadings seem to indicate that defendants would qualify as social hosts.

Harmon v. State of Oregon

320 Or. App. 406 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 2022

Finally, we note that, in its brief on appeal, in a footnote, the state argues that “even if OSH was not entitled to absolute immunity against plaintiff’s alle- gations, it was entitled to qualified immunity.” … But qualified immunity was not raised in the state’s motion for summary judgment and the state’s undeveloped qualified immunity argument on appeal likewise does not provide a basis to affirm. 412

Canell v. State

185 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 27, 2002

high level of public authority; routine decisions that every employee must make, even when they require judgment, do not qualify for discretionary immunity). … Myers, 169 Or App 472, 478 , 10 P3d 265 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 692 (2001) (outlining what a plaintiff must demonstrate to establish negligence per se).

Bush v. Paragon Property, Inc.

165 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 1, 2000

The Court held that the state officials did not have a federal right to prevail in advance of trial if their qualified immunity defense *705 were meritorious. … First, there is no particular reason that it is necessary to decide the issue of qualified immunity before trial in order to achieve the purpose of section 1983.

Myers v. United States

883 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 1995

established' as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. … We did not hold that the alleged conduct violated a protected 'liberty' interest, and we certainly did not hold that the defendant lost his qualified immunity by violating a 'clearly established’ con *534 stitutional right

Tennyson v. Children's Services Division

93 Or. App. 366 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 1988

Qualified immunity protects conduct taken in good faith which does not violate clearly established constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about. Qualified immunity is the norm. Harlow v. … The burden of establishing absolute immunity is on the official seeking it. Butz v. Economou, 438 US 478, 506 , 98 S Ct 2894 , 57 L Ed 2d 895 (1978).

Delaney v. Shobe

235 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 12, 1964

Hatfield is the duly elected and qualified Governor of the State of Oregon and is a member of the Board of Control of that State; and the defendant Clarence. T. … Viewing plaintiff’s complaint in this posture and light, the nonliability of the respective defendants is clearly pointed up and established. a) As for the defendant Clarence T.

Anderson v. Central Point School District No. 6

554 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 1982

Plaintiff does agree that Groshong is entitled to a qualified good faith immunity if he can prove objective good faith. 2 Objective good faith requires proof that Groshong’s conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory … All others are only entitled to a qualified good faith immunity. Id.

Gambee v. Williams

971 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 1997

Qualified Immunity “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as *478 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established constitutional rights.

Martin v. Yunker

121 Or. App. 77 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1993

That rule provides: “(1) A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. “(2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission … The qualifier that “palpably unreasonable” conduct may give rise to liability is congruent with the common law notion that parental immunity extends to “ordinary negligence.” Cowgill, Adm’r v.

Tarhuni v. Holder

8 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2014

Thus, to avoid qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated must have been ‘“clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Accordingly, the Court concludes on this record that the Individual Capacity Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in light of the fact that Plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a cognizable, “clearly established

Arnsberg v. United States

549 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 1982

Moreover, defendants in a Bivens action have a qualified immunity defense available, based upon their good faith belief in the legality of their actions. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1977); Butz v. … The special circumstances which warrant creation of the qualified personal immunity for agents acting in good faith do not apply to the government under the Federal Torts Claims Act.

Fishermen Against Irresponsible Reallocation, Inc. v. Fish & Wildlife Commission

222 Or. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 24, 2008

for antitrust immunity, that premise is wrong. … Other governmental actors may establish *361 state policy for purposes of antitrust immunity through the rulemaking process. See, e.g., Bates v.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corp.

145 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 18, 2015

The Court then looked to the *1029 rest of the 1951 Acts in an effort to resolve the ambiguity and “to clearly establish the scope of the States’ more general consent to suit.” Id. at 306 , 110 S.Ct. 1868 . … The authority to waive immunity “must' be clearly expressed” in these sources. Id. (citation omitted).

Landis v. Limbaugh

282 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 2016

RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY DEFENSE The first defense asks us to interpret Oregon’s recreational use statutes. To do so, we follow the framework of statutory construction established in PGE v. … That is, the legislature has provided that public, as well as private landowners may choose to make lands available and qualify for immunity.

Titus v. City of Prairie City

802 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2011

For purposes of qualified immunity analysis, the issue is whether the disclosure at issue is rises to the level of a constitutional violation which has been clearly established. … This balancing “makes the qualified immunity defense difficult to overcome, especially in light of the requirement that the substantive constitutional right be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Ramstead v. Morgan

219 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1959

After considerable hesitation, we are of the opinion that the question should be answered in the affirmative, that a case like this is clearly within the spirit, if not the letter, of the established *393 rule. … It is argued that the words “in good faith” were not intended to qualify this indefeasible immunity but were inserted in the statute to preserve to the person defamed his common law action for malicious prosecution.

Turner v. State

270 Or. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 15, 2015

This statement identifies three criteria that a government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity. … City of Lake Oswego, 335 Or 19, 31 , 56 P3d 396 (2002) (“The burden is on the governmental defendant to establish its immunity.”).