Case law

Giesy v. Marion County

91 Or. 450 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1919

In the ordinary course of procedure in such matteifs, it might often happen that a person who is not a qualified petitioner for a county road would sign such a petition. … The established practice under the statute should not be chahged except by the clearly expressed will of the lawmakers. The law of 1913 was repealed by the Laws of 1917, page 588. 7.

Hillman v. Northern Wasco County PUD

213 Or. 264 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1958

But the constitution does not sanction the delegation of a legislative power to any private agency no matter how well qualified such agency may be. … We will first consider the question of governmental immunity.

Wood v. Oregon Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2019

Finally, I agree that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages. … “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.

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.

Oregon Ex Rel. Roberts v. Mushroom King, Inc.

77 B.R. 813 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 1987

In this case, the legislature established the Fund and appropriated money for it. … Under almost all of the DeLong criteria, the plaintiff here qualifies as an arm of the state government and not a citizen under the diversity statute by virtue of the sovereign immunity granted under the eleventh amendment

Bishop v. Cates (In Re Cates)

73 B.R. 874 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · May 20, 1987

In In re West, 64 B.R. 738 (Bankr.D.Or.1986), this Court held that a debtor’s interest in an E.R.I.S.A. qualified plan is immune from the trustee’s reach only if that interest is subject to a spendthrift clause that is enforceable … The fact that the trust mechanism was established by the employer does not make the employer the settlor of the trust.

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

Peninsula Drainage District No. 2 v. City of Portland

212 Or. 398 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1958

Where then would there be sovereign immunity? In Lee v. … Aho that “This decision [the Bishop case] sufficiently establishes the proposition that this ‘tax’ can be levied * * * upon real property which has come into possession of the United States.” Ford v.

Fonseca v. City of Medford

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 2, 2025

Rather, the court found that for purposes of qualified immunity, a First Amendment right to impersonate a first responder and enter a restricted accident scene to take photographs was not clearly established in 2010. … A reporter’s right of access, even if qualified, is a right that is clearly established under First Amendment precedent.

Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego

365 Or. 422 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 2019

Lash, The Origins of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Part I: "Privileges and Immunities" as an Antebellum Term of Art, 98 Geo. L.J. 1241 , 1253, 1260-61 (2010) ). … that the immunity belonged equally to all who satisfied the terms "debtors and sailors," even though the immunity was not equally available to those who were only "debtors."

Blue v. City of Union

159 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1938

negatived, or the *17 exemption clearly stated. — 2 Dillon, Mun. … Influenced by such promptings, the party may forego rights which he could readily establish in litigation, but he surrenders them for the sake of peace.

Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Insurance

207 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

as insured costs, plaintiff will receive a greater “amount of ben efits” — i.e., more money — than he would receive if the expenses do not qualify. … Because I conclude that Progressive’s statements to plaintiff and its posture in litigation left unresolved issues beyond the amount of benefits, I would hold that Progressive cannot avail itself of the immunity from attorney

Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners

288 Or. 293 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1980

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals was troubled by the problem posed by forbidding a skilled or professional person, once found qualified, to practice his or her occupation on essentially ad hoc determinations of "unprofessional … The use of the word "means” clearly was designed to limit "unprofessional conduct” to the specified acts.

State v. Borowski

231 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 28, 2009

They argue that the statute “grant[s]” an “immunity[y]” (from prosecution) to one “class of citizens” (those who are involved in a labor dispute, broadly defined), but that the immunity does “not equally belong to all citizens … To justify differential treatment, in other words, the city would have needed to establish that labor picketing was “clearly more disruptive”; in the absence of that showing, the distinction between labor and nonlabor picketing

Foust v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Because it was clearly established that gratuitous invasions of privacy violate the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. Kelley

118 Or. 397 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1926

His waiver is not partial; having once cast aside the cloak of immunity, he may not resume it at will, whenever cross-examination may be inconvenient or embarrassing.” … In the twenty-seventh assignment the defendants complain about the court not giving the following direction to the jury: “The right to qualify a verdict of murder in the first degree or guilty of murder in the first degree

DePaul Industries v. City of Eugene

District Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2020

Qualified immunity depends on whether an official violated a clearly established constitutional right. Kramer v. … Miller violated clearly established law, Mr. Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity. II. Due Process Mr.

Vaughn v. Klamath County Fire District No.1

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 2025

Qualified immunity At the crux of Defendants’ motion for JMOL is the argument that the Estate has failed to show that Engler and Dustin are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Page 8 — Opinion and Order A plaintiff attempting to overcome the presumption of qualified immunity must first show □□□ constitutional right was clearly established. Gasho v.

State v. Ciancanelli

339 Or. 282 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 2005

In fact, the words are so clear and sweeping that we think that we would not be keeping faith with the framers who wrote them if we were to qualify or water them down, unless the historical record demonstrated clearly that … Clearly, it can do so only if it demonstrates that Robertson is incompatible with both of the possible meanings of that provision that we have identified.

Stafford v. Garrett

46 Or. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1980

The trial court tried the case without a jury and found that the plaintiff did not establish that the defendants were negligent by a preponderance of the evidence. We affirm. … Plaintiff says that there is no question but that the cause of action based on the Plantz telephone conversation involved qualified, and not absolute, privilege.