Case law

Garrett v. Olsen

71 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1984

rule of the law of torts that a teacher is immune from liability for physical punishment, reasonable in degree, administered to a pupil. … However, the court qualified its holding: “This is not equivalent to an openended measure of general damages for ‘pain and suffering’ drawn from tort law.

Committee in Opposition to the Prison v. Oregon Emergency Corrections Facility Siting Authority

309 Or. 678 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1990

The Act established the process that led to the selection of the subject site. … Equal Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Petitioners’ equal privileges and immunities and equal protection arguments also lack merit.

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).

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

State v. J. B.

339 Or. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 2025

Here, multiple witnesses agreed that appellant has neurocognitive disorder, although its severity had not yet been established. … In their conver- sation, appellant was clearly able to “identify the neglect in the home,” but it was unclear that she understood the related risks.

Booth v. Tektronix, Inc.

312 Or. 463 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1991

Those statutory provisions are prefaced by the qualifying phrase that ‘ ‘ [s]uch rules shall include, but not necessarily be limited to [items specified in (l)(a)-(e)].” … reliance) that the rule would not provide the physician immunity for participating in ex parte contact.

Murrell v. Union Pacific Railroad

544 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 2008

This statement identifies three criteria that government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity. … The City has met its burden in establishing the affirmative defense of discretionary immunity. Therefore, defendant City’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Pocholec v. GIUSTINA

224 Or. 245 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1960

It is for the jury to decide whether the landowner has met the minimum standard of care required for immunity from liability. … Clearly, the witness Taylor, who was salesman for a fence company, was not qualified to testify as to the feasibility of operating a log pond encircled by a fence.

Amfac Foods, Inc. v. International Systems & Controls Corp.

294 Or. 94 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1982

We should add that proof of the control actually exercised may, in some cases, suffice to establish an agency relationship. … The evidence was clearly relevant, both to explain the meaning of a colloquial term having a unique significance in the industry, and to rebut Key’s testimony. On remand, the evidence should be received.

Astoria Plywood Corp. v. Department of Revenue

258 Or. 76 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1971

,” whereas its own witness was the only “qualified expert” who used “the authorized appraisal technique of replacement cost less depreciation.” … Affirmed. ① It is contended by the Department that “the testimony actually establishes a good timber supply and shipping facilities.”

Seto v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

311 Or. 456 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1991

The Act establishes an alternative to the usual land use siting and judicial review process, which is governed by ORS chapter 197. SB 573, §§ 1, 3. … Our conclusion is supported both by the clearly defined scope of the Tri-Met Final Order subject to review, which does not include the SDEIS process, and by the special purpose of the Act, which is to establish an alternative

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

Van Gordon, Etc. v. Portland Gen. Elec.

59 Or. App. 740 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 10, 1982

Clatsop County, 46 Or App 129 , 610 P2d 1248 (1980), we said: “ORS 105.665 clearly relieves defendant of any liability for mere negligent behavior. … Viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the evidence established several facts.

Byam v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 2019

Nor are Defendants entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the

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.

Carrigg v. Fackrell

44 Or. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1980

The contract does not define "qualified purchasers,” and it establishes no mechanism for determining what a "qualified purchaser” is. … Clearly, the relationship of the original purchasers and the corporation is not comparable to the original purchasers’ *417 relationship with General Motors.

Friar v. Jackson

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 19, 2023

“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. … right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.”

Burt v. Blumenauer

65 Or. App. 399 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 1983

The grant application requested $55,573 of federal funds, to be matched by $38,573 from the county, to establish a “Fluoridation Public Information Project.” … That was before the anti-fluoridation measure qualified for the ballot but at a time when the political committee supporting the initiative had already submitted 21,000 signatures, 6,000 more than necessary to qualify, to

State v. Ohotto

261 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 2014

We also conclude that the deputy was not qualified to testify as an expert in alcohol absorption and elimination rates. 5 Oregon’s evidence code requires that scientific evidence must be proffered by “a witness qualified … Id. *77 To prove the offense, the state needed to establish that defendant drove while he was intoxicated.

Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego

285 Or. App. 181 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2017

Article I, section 20, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, provides, “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 … See Crocker and Crocker, 332 Or 42, 54 , 22 P3d 759 (2001) (“The equal privileges and immunities clause scrutinizes benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular class [.] ”).