Case law

Martin v. Hermiston School District 8R

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 4, 2020

“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. … Turning to qualified immunity, the court held that the liberty interest created by the California statute was clearly established. Id. at 502.

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.

Galego v. Knudsen

281 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1978

aid the trier of the facts in his search for the truth. * * *” Clearly Mr. … Durbin so qualified.

Blyth & Co., Inc. v. City of Portland

204 Or. 153 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1955

Dana is clearly disqualified because it is conceded that he is not a resident of the City but resides some ten miles beyond the City limits in Clackamas County. … Dana, therefore, is qualified to sit as a member of the Dock Commission of the City of Portland. The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed.

Sizemore v. City of Dallas

443 F. Supp. 2d 1201 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 9, 2006

Finally, Harper contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity analysis proceeds in two stages. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for farther inquiries concerning qualified immunity. Id.

Valerio v. Valerio

224 Or. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 3, 2008

We need not determine whether that incident sufficed, however, because a minimum of two qualifying contacts is required, and the January 2007 incident at the coffee shop clearly does not qualify. … In short, petitioner failed to establish the requisites for issuance of an SPO. The trial court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion. Reversed.

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.

State v. Schutte

146 Or. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

“Upon leaving the establishment, we were both attacked by some people from behind. I was able to get up and help [defendant], as he was on the ground and was in a lot of pain. … Defendant argues that the court erred in finding that the corroborating circumstances were insufficient to *102 establish the trustworthiness of Bollinger’s statement.

Welch v. Bancorp Management Advisors, Inc.

296 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1983

Thus, to enjoy immunity, a corporate officer or employe must be acting within the scope of his employment and acting with the intent to benefit the corporation. 250 Or at 76-77 . … In deciding the present case, the Court of Appeals borrowed its primary motive test from the primary motive concept used to uphold qualified privilege in the defamation context.

Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc.

256 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2013

“REPRESENTATIVE SHETTERLY: And clearly it’s not, because the greater risk is they’re going to go out and hurt somebody else, in which case then the bar owner is still liable. … In that case, the court held that, because the defendant would have been immune from an action at common law in 1857 due to sovereign immunity, a legislative limit on liability did not violate Article I, section 10.

Jennings v. State

154 Or. 482 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1936

But it found that the immunity statute did not authorize a grant of immunity as broad as the available privilege. It granted amnesty against prosecution for bribery, but not for gambling. … It was contended that a section of the immunity statutes afforded him sufficient protection.

City of Lincoln v. United States Department of Interior

229 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2002

Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss Claims Seven and Eight on Basis of Tribal Immunity. … . *1114 Tribal immunity Indian tribes have been recognized, first by the European nations, later by the United States, as distinct, independent political entities, qualified to exercise self-government by reason of their

Gahr v. Marion County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 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.

Oatney v. Premo

275 Or. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015

be self-contained claims unrelated to the evidence presented at trial — for example, a claim that counsel should have sought suppression of evidence derived from petitioner’s statement at a release hearing — others are clearly … Dickerson, 356 Or 822, 829 , 345 P3d 447 (2015) (in interpreting statutes, courts give legal terms “their established legal meanings”).

Johnson v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education

272 Or. App. 710 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 12, 2015

Therefore, based on the statute’s text, plaintiffs allegations alone are insufficient to establish the legal conclusion that plaintiffs claims arose out of actions that Davis took in the performance of duty; Davis must establish … Before the enactment of the OTCA, the state enjoyed absolute immunity from tort liability. Smith v. Pernoll, 291 Or 67, 69 , 628 P2d 729 (1981).

Peterson v. Mickles

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages.” Wood v. Moss, 134 S. … The doctrine provides immunity when the right asserted by a plaintiff was not clearly established or when the officials could have reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. Romero v.

Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane County

207 Or. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

Accordingly, the county must demonstrate a practical effect on its interests in order to establish standing to bring this appeal. … As explained, the statute clearly contemplates that a qualifying facility will be disqualified when it is ‘no longer used as a firearms training facility.’

Adan v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2024

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.” … Qualified Immunity Even assuming plaintiffs established a violation of their First or Fourth Amendment rights, summary judgment is warranted on the basis of qualified immunity

Jurgens v. Columbia County

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 20, 2025

Brown’s constitutional rights, based on the record before this Court, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the defendant “(1) violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct ‘was clearly established at the time.’”

Miller v. Washington County

650 F. Supp. 2d 1113 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 2009

immunity. … Similarly, I am unable to issue a ruling on the County’s alternative argument that Gordon is entitled to qualified immunity.