Case law

Hanns v. Friedly

181 Or. 631 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1947

Counsel for defendant then objected to the question, on the ground that the witness was not qualified. The court ruled that, as owner of the property, she was qualified. … In onr view she was qualified to express an opinion as to its value.

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 [.] ”).

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.

Baker v. (Oregon Dept. of Corrections) O.D.O.C

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2019

Alternatively, defendants argue that Young is 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.

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.”

Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry

328 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

We further reject plaintiff’s argument regarding the privileges and immunities clause. … way of necessity is established.”

Gwin v. Lynn

344 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2008

However, as this court has held, legislative context and history establish ineluctably that the scope of the rule was not intended to extend to expert witnesses. Stevens, 336 Or at 400-05 . … To qualify as a “fact” witness, the person must not have obtained the evidence principally for the purpose of rendering an expert opinion in that trial. 2 The text of ORCP 36 B is set out later in this opinion, 344 Or at

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.

Tyvoll v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 2023

Defendant Damerville also objects to Judge Russo’s recommendation that summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim based on qualified immunity should be denied. ECF 69 at 7. … Nor can this Court, on the present evidentiary record, find that Defendant Damerville is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Gale v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ETC.

293 Or. 221 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1982

Others may qualify for the full amount of the refund while paying little or none of the tax. … A mere showing of discriminatory treatment is insufficient to establish an injury of constitutional proportion.” 270 Or at 629-630 .

Wimer v. Miller

235 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1963

It applies to any one incurring a common law liability for injury to workmen not immune to suit under the Act.” … The Act confers upon the employer immunity from an action for *33 damages. Nowhere does it confer upon the negligent physician a similar immunity.

The Dalles & Rockland Ferry Co. v. Hendryx

189 F. 266 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Jul 23, 1911

And it is firmly established that to give the court jurisdiction of such a suit it must appear from the plaintiff’s own statement of his cause of action that he is claiming some right, title, privilege or immunity by virtue … C.) 98 Fed. 455 . [3] Now, the plaintiff is not asserting any claim, right, or immunity under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Kerr-Daly v. City of Eugene

District Court, D. Oregon · May 30, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.

Daugherty v. Oregon State Highway Commission

270 Or. 144 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1974

We think the kind of highway maintenance involved in this case was clearly not discretionary, but merely minis *148 terial or operational. … The evidence establishes that ice began to form on the bridges and highways at about 8:30 a.m. and was accompanied by or followed closely by a freezing rain.

Coleman v. Bay Area Health District

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 2020

Qualified immunity in this case depends on whether Ms. Davisson violated a clearly established constitutional right in her individual capacity as a manager. … Davisson made a decision that violated clearly established law, therefore she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission

347 Or. 449 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2009

The restrictions on offering gifts also do not qualify as limitations on the time, place, and manner of speech. … Based on the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiffs do not qualify under ORS 20.080 as parties “affected” by the solicitation restrictions.

Riesland v. Bailey

146 Or. 574 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1934

The discretion must be exercised under the established rules of law, and it may be said to be abused within the foregoing rule where the action complained of has been arbitrary or capricious, * * * or there has been a refusal … in the properties make them amply financially qualified to discharge the obligation.

City of Eugene v. Lincoln

183 Or. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 2002

Thus, some cases qualify for appeal from municipal court to appellate courts only because they are constitutional, namely, constitutional cases involving small penalties or other characteristics that would normally preclude … 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.

Smith v. Alexander

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 14, 2023

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