Case law

Geiger v. Kitzhaber

994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 19, 2014

The state’s marriage laws clearly were meant to, and indeed accomplished the goal of, preventing same-gender couples from marrying. … of marriage, where the couple would be otherwise qualified to marry under Oregon law.

Comcast of Oregon II, Inc. v. City of Eugene

346 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2009

Cities in Oregon never have enjoyed a complete immunity equal to the state’s sovereign immunity. … In those earlier versions, the phrase clearly modified or explained the kind of‘claim’ for ‘damages’ to which it applied.

State v. Herrera

286 Or. 349 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 8, 1979

His guilt must be established at the trial by evidence that convinces a factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt. … Reversed and remanded for a new trial. 1 The immunity agreement stated in full: "CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AGREEMENT "We, the undersigned, do hereby agree that STEVE LERMA shall be granted immunity for any criminal act in which

Cellers v. Meachem

49 Or. 186 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1907

Since the word “surety” can only affect the status of the makers of the note as between themselves, and as Lyons’ liability to the plaintiffs is the same as if he had signed the instrument without using the qualifying word … It is indicated in the title of the act under consideration that its purpose is “to establish a law uniform with the laws of other states on that subject.”

Cortez v. Nacco Material Handling Group

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

We do not read the second sentence as establishing statutory immunity in that situation. … Because ORS 656.018 (2011) did not refer to both partners and directors, ORS 63.002(2) teaches that members and managers do not qualify for the immunity that ORS 656.018(3) (2011) extended to direc- tors.

Oregon State Bar v. Ortiz

77 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1986

defendant argues that the injunction was improperly granted, because (1) the federal government has preempted the state’s ability to regulate the practice of law in the immigration area; and (2) the state has failed to establish … The question is whether defendant is immune from state regulation, even though he does not fit within the federal exceptions to the attorney requirement. An almost identical question has arisen in patent law cases.

Gardner v. Brady

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2020

Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff cannot establish a violation of his constitutional rights, and alternatively, that they 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. Pauly, 137 S.

Julian v. Department of Revenue

17 Or. Tax 384 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 11, 2004

from state taxation that Congress has not clearly expressed.” … The court is recognizing that simply moving goods in a truck does not qualify as a commercial activity.

Wade v. Miller

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 6, 2025

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

Johnson v. SAIF Corp.

202 Or. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 2005

Employers were *282 given the option of either contributing to the IAF or qualifying as a “direct responsibility employer,” that is, demonstrating financial ability to provide coverage by either posting a bond or obtaining … “This bill would establish SAIF as a public corporation under the direction of a five-member Board of Directors.

A.F. v. Evans

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2021

clearly established at the time. … Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity protects an official from reasonable mistakes about the legality of his actions. Wilkins v.

Ritchie v. Board of Parole

37 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1978

Perry did not involve a system like that established by ORS 144.343 in which appointed counsel is guaranteed in all cases where counsel would be likely to be of assistance. … Art I, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Sundermier v. State ex rel. Public Employees Retirement System

269 Or. App. 586 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 2015

In other words, HB 3349 established a mechanism by which the affected public employees would receive an additional benefit to remedy the breach of contract described in Hughes . … First, we apply the familiar framework for statutory interpretation established in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and subsequently modified by State v.

State Ex Rel. Reed v. Schwab

287 Or. 411 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1979

the Court of Appeals by ORS 2.560(6), which provides: *414 "The Court of Appeals may make and enforce all rules necessary for the prompt and orderly dispatch of the business of the court * * We think the challenged rule clearly … ” clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. *417 Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution provides: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities

Schmidt v. Intel Corp.

199 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2005

Intel contends that it established that Schmidt was its subject worker for purposes of the workers’ compensation law and, thus, workers’ compensation is plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy. 2 We reverse and remand. … as a ‘self-insured employer.’ * * * [T]he statute immunizes employers maintaining such assurance from tort claims arising from injury to their subject workers.”

Pooler

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2026

an argument about qualified immunity. … In deciding whether to address the issue of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, “[i]f the operative complaint ‘contains even one allegation of a harmful act that would constitute a violation of a clearly established

Oregon Methodist Homes, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

226 Or. 298 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1961

Immunity from taxes on the ground of being a public charity is an affirmative defense and the burden of establishing the eleemosynary character of an institution is upon the party asserting it. Ackerman v. … For while it is now clearly established that a charity may carry on some commercial business without losing its exemption [citing authorities], we think it is equally clear that an organization of a commercial character which

Pacificorp v. Portland General Electric Co.

770 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 3, 1991

Columbia argues that the doctrine of state action does not immunize PGE from federal antitrust liability because the State of Oregon has not clearly articulated a policy to displace competition for electric service customers … Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 , 100 S.Ct. 937, 943 , 63 L.Ed.2d 233 (1980), the Court explained that its decisions “establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown.

A.F. v. Evans

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2021

clearly established at the time. … Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity protects an official from reasonable mistakes about the legality of his actions. Wilkins v.

Carmona-Perez v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2023

Thus, this Court turns to the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. b. … granting qualified immunity.