Case law

Erwin v. Oregon Ex Rel. Kitzhaber

231 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 23, 2001

Erwin cites to O.R.S. 9.080 and O.R.S. 9.200 authorizing the Board of Governors to establish the Lawyers’ Liability Fund. … The record in this case establishes clearly that Erwin had the opportunity to litigate and in fact did litigate in the state court action the same claims and issues raised in this federal court action against the same parties

Miculka v. American Mail Line, Ltd.

229 F. Supp. 665 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 21, 1964

Clearly, nothing in the Court’s language indicates any notice or acknowl-edgement of a prior contrary ruling or holding by the Court, let alone an express overruling and discarding of prior rule or law. *668 However, assuming … effect of overruling decisions, which are in and of their language silent as to effect and wash, is pointedly delineated by the dissent to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon where the long-standing, judicially-established

Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.

984 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 1998

Plaintiff in this case entered the qualifying school tournament and made it through the first and second stages. In the first two stages of the qualifying tournament, players are permitted to use golf carts. … For instance, a facility that specializes in hosting wedding receptions and private parties may be open only to invitees of the bride and groom, yet it clearly qualifies as a public accommodation.

Foust

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2026

Alternatively, Defendants are 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.

Butterfield v. State of Oregon

163 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1999

Clearly, Oregon courts when construing a statute passed by the Oregon Legislature are not bound by lower federal court characterizations regarding the state statutes. … or section 207 [establishing maximum hours and overtime compensation requirements!

Harpole v. Boston

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2023

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to address two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established

Forrest v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co.

64 Or. 240 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1913

Marsh, as indicated by the offer, was clearly admissible in the trial of the case. 2. It is urged, however, that the testimony sought to be adduced from Dr. … C., who is similarly qualified as a witness.”

Jonsson v. Department of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 537 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 30, 1971

Tax Commission, supra, and the other eases cited above clearly establish that although the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution bars discrimination based solely upon residence, it does not preclude disparity … The order of the Department of Eevenue is sustained. ① “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Odom v. Russ

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can shield a defendant from liability for an alleged constitutional violation. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … ; and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established.”

McCrae v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 28, 2023

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court considers two questions: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the … The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims because Plaintiff has failed to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 1.

Cowgill, Adm'r v. Boock, Adm'r

189 Or. 282 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 1950

The coroner, after having qualified as an expert witness, testified that in his opinion the bodies had been dead at least two days. Mr. … “But there may be acts which clearly are not to be referred to such relation.

Brady v. Portland State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 23, 2019

Government officials performing discretionary functions receive qualified immunity from civil liability for damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, in order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the public official’s conduct was “unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

Clifford v. City of Clatskanie

204 Or. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2006

Applying that standard, we concluded that uncontroverted evidence established that the officer had, in fact, been acting pursuant to his “official duty or authority” in communicating the defamatory material to other officers … This statement identifies three criteria that a government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity.

Herrera-Welker

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 1, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from Section 1983 liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … and Recommendation — Page 6 clearly established at the time.

State v. Rogers

330 Or. 282 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 4, 2000

I have clearly proven to all [and] myself that I don’t belong in the free community and never do. … The Oregon Constitution establishes that right in conjunction with the right to be heard by counsel.

Bong v. White

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 4, 2025

to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff does not, and indeed cannot, point to any clearly established authority holding government attorneys liable merely for defending state actors or agencies in civil litigation.

Roberts v. Thies

70 Or. App. 256 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 1984

Oregon cases clearly distinguish the acts of a city council which are subject to the referendum from those which are not. "* * * The only acts of the council that are subject to the referendum, by Section 1[(5)], Article … of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities

MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Science University

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 28, 2023

Where a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified immunity, “[i]t is the plaintiff who bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated [are] clearly established.” … Finally, in determining whether qualified immunity applies to a given case, a court may consider whether the rights were clearly established before deciding whether the right was violated at all.

King v. Rangel

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2020

No 1 Defendants also maintain that Rangel is entitled to qualified immunity because the return address on the letter simply stated “ACLU Oregon” and did not indicate the letter was from an attorney. See White v. … Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam) (“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.”); Or.

Harney Valley Irrigation District v. Weittenhiller

101 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1921

When an irrigation district is organized, it is authorized through its board of directors to acquire property for the purposes of its organization, to sue and be sued, to enforce and maintain its rights, privileges and immunities … as provided by this law, and they shall hold their offices, respectively, until their successors are elected and qualified.”