Case law

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.

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.

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.

Cardenas v. Farmers Insurance

230 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2009

The question before us on appeal is whether a dispute concerning the enforceability of a release is an issue that relates only to “damages”; if so, then defendant qualifies for the “safe harbor” immunity from attorney fees … established by ORS 742.061(3), set out below.

Ortega Gonsalez v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 12, 2020

Qualified Immunity Nor does the alleged conduct rise to a constitutional violation, or a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus entitling Defendants to qualified immunity on this claim. … Alternatively, assuming a constitutional or statutory right has been violated, the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the Incident and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard

State v. Babson

249 Or. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 2012

pursuant to ORS 173.710: “The Legislative Administration Committee hereby is established as a joint committee of the Legislative Assembly.” … “Cases interpreting Article I, section 8, establish that a person cannot immunize herself or himself from the application of speech-neutral laws by accompanying otherwise illegal conduct with expressive activity.

Haldeman v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 070773c (or.tax 9-24-2008)

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 24, 2008

*Page 2 Plaintiff's "domestic partner" who qualified for the above health insurance benefits during 2006 is of the opposite sex. … During 2006, Plaintiff was not legally married to the individual who qualified for the domestic partner benefits. The exemption is claimed on the return by subtracting the "income."

Department of Human Services v. K. C. J.

228 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 2009

According to DHS, the testimony by the other expert witnesses clearly supports the trial court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt. … The second sentence of ORS 419B.365(4), read without the phrase beginning with “including” that is set off by two commas, clearly states that, despite the clear and convincing standard of proof specified in that statute’s

Brown v. Lane County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 5, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

Matter of City of Prineville's Decision

49 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1980

and concluded "* * * that although the county court’s action may eventually turn on a discretionary choice, the statutory design sufficiently channels discretion by factfinding procedures and broadly stated criteria to qualify … For example, the writ does not allege— and petitioners do not contend — that the city used any immunity it might have from its zoning ordinance to change the authorized uses of the property before transferring it to the buyer

Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education

344 Or. 497 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 8, 2008

OSAA indicated that if PAA refused to play a Saturday game for which it qualified, PAA would have to forfeit the game. … The basketball tournament in which petitioners will play, if they qualify, will be in Salem, not Pendleton.

Employment Division v. Peddicord

125 Or. App. 113 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1993

If those earnings are not considered, claimant does not satisfy the $1,000 minimum necessary to qualify for benefits. … ORS 657.030(1) clearly provides that there is “employment” for purposes of the unemployment compensation law only if services are performed for an “employer,” as that term is defined in ORS 657.025(1).

Senn v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

305 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1988

such immunizations.” … Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., Nos. 52108, 52564 (Ohio Ct App, July 30, 1987) (LEXIS, States library, Ohio file) (DPT vaccine qualifies for comment k protection).

State v. Savage

96 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1919

state Constitutions which prohibit the enactment of special laws -granting privileges and immunities. … Sturgess, 9 Or. 537, 539 , this court recognized the validity of a local act of October 16, 1878, establishing “such regulations for the protection of salmon in the particular locality embraced by it, as the legislature deemed

Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 26, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from section 1983 liability “insofaras their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which 2 reasonable person would have … issue was : clearly established at the time.

Galicia v. Crawford

294 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2003

Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 , 112 S.Ct. 1011 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992) (no explicit waiver of federal government’s sovereign immunity); Gregory v. … Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 , 105 S.Ct. 3142 , 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (no explicit waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)).

Papst v. Bay

354 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 2005

Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden … Bay is not entitled to qualified immunity.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Carpenter

250 Or. 394 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1968

The preparation of a false document, and the threat of criminal prosecution to enforce a claim are acts which clearly violate the ethical code of the legal profession. … Similarly the threat of criminal prosecution to enforce a claim is contrary to the accepted precepts of “fair play” and is clearly proscribed by the lawyer’s code of ethics.

Delker v. Maass

843 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 2, 1994

Qualified Immunity: Defendant Vargo asserts he is qualifiedly immune from liability because there are no cases clearly establishing an inmate’s constitutional right to surgical repair of an ordinary inguinal hernia. … The precise facts need not have been previously determined, so long as the legal principle is clearly established and a reasonable public official would realize that his conduct violated that rule of law. Anderson v.

Hood River County v. Department of Revenue

13 Or. Tax 292 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 19, 1995

In this case, county contends that the department is obligated to establish the absence of any significant differences. … The court finds that assessment of ad valorem taxes against the federal lessee violates the constitutional principle of intergovernmental immunity.