Case law

Macias

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2026

Qualified Immunity The State Defendants and Defendant Roberts contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. … 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 person would have

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.

State v. Linville

127 Or. 565 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1928

It is the policy of the state to clothe its servants with official immunities when engaged in official acts. … The immunity belongs, not to the individual, but to the office, and it is the general rule that if the immunity is to be vindicated, the office must be proclaimed or made known by the officer, in order to punish a defendant

Watts v. Novak

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 5, 2024

Applicable Law Regarding Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Second, the Court asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.

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.”

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

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.

Thompson v. Coats

274 Or. 477 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1976

Pictures taken of the scene of the accident the day after it occurred showed clearly that there were no reflectorized guideposts along either side of the pavement and there was tes *481 timony that these pictures were an … the contract regarding completion of the contract and acceptance of the work by the Highway Commission are as follows: "105.01 Authority of the Engineer — * * * "Approval by the engineer signifies favorable opinion and qualified

Griffin v. Asla

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity for Individual Police Officers A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity against § 1983 claims if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the right at issue was clearly established at the time.

State v. Langley

314 Or. 511 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1992

A “signature crime” is not established by this level of similarity. … Defendant also relies on the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution.

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

Emery v. Nooth

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 18, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants also raise qualified immunity as grounds for dismissal of all claims. Defs.’ Mot. 14–16. … ; and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established.”

Walsh v. King

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 2020

Qualified Immunity Government officials may be entitled to qualified immunity for claims brought under § 1983. … As briefly described above, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hoekstre v. STATE EX REL. DLCD

249 Or. App. 626 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 2012

As described by the Supreme Court, this case concerns the “express pathway,” which is set out in section 6 of Measure 49. 2 Pursuant to section 6(1), if a claimant establishes certain qualifying prerequisites, the claimant … Petitioner sought judicial review of DLCD’s order. 4 On review, the parties’ contentions essentially reduced to a single legal issue — that is, whether section 6(3) of Measure 49 allows a qualified claimant to establish “

State v. Weishar

78 Or. App. 468 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1986

Defendant argues that ORS 133.515(1) required the police to obtain the services of a qualified interpreter to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to understand his rights. … There does not appear to be any dispute regarding that proposition and, in fact, the law clearly supports the state’s position.

Gray v. Seterus, Inc.

233 F. Supp. 3d 865 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 2017

When the Grays originally secured this loan, they used Norman’s brother (Howard Gray) as a cosigner in order to qualify. … A disparate impact claim can be made when the regulation or policy, or its implementation, is clearly ' discriminatory across one or more classes. 24 C.F.R. § ,100.500.

Bruner v. Josephine County

240 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

See Friends of Yamhill County, 237 Or.App. at 177-78 , 238 P.3d 1016 (explaining the relevant factors used to establish a "common law vested right" under section 5(3) of Measure 49). … Whether zoning permissions have ripened to a degree sufficient to immunize the use from regulatory controls is tested by the "common law vested right" doctrine referenced in section 5(3) of Measure 49.

Westwood v. City of Hermiston

787 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 15, 2011

Qualified immunity of Chief Coulombe. … Defendants assert Chief Coulombe is entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims because “there is no evidence to suggest that he acted in violation of any clearly established law.”

State v. Perry

165 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 9, 2000

If the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed in the text and context of the statute, then we may also consider its legislative history. Id. … The state contends that defendant, as a nonowner, simply does not qualify for the exception.

Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan

223 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2008

that, in fact, what claimant presented qualified as such a condition. … ORS 656.273(8) (2008) now provides that a worker seeking to establish an aggravation of an injury or disease for which permanent disability has been awarded “must establish that the worsening is more than waxing and waning