Case law

Ramstead v. Morgan

219 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1959

After considerable hesitation, we are of the opinion that the question should be answered in the affirmative, that a case like this is clearly within the spirit, if not the letter, of the established *393 rule. … It is argued that the words “in good faith” were not intended to qualify this indefeasible immunity but were inserted in the statute to preserve to the person defamed his common law action for malicious prosecution.

Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State

331 Or. 634 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2001

to have violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … Thus, the defense of qualified immunity is lost if two elements are present: (1) a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right violated, at the time of the violation, was clearly established.

Turner v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation

359 Or. 644 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 26, 2016

Dept. of Transportation that removing parking spaces or reconfiguring parking on Highway 101 at Collins Street would qualify as low-cost. … Because we have determined that ODOT has failed to establish under the requisite summary judgment stan- dard a factual proposition that is essential to its affirmative defense of discretionary immunity based on the STIP selec

Forter v. Geer

868 F. Supp. 2d 1091 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2012

immunity on that claim because their conduct did not violate clearly established law, and to the extent defendants were named in their official capacity the state is entitled to sovereign immunity. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields defendants from personal liability regarding any of the claims defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment addresses.

Freece v. Clackamas County

442 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 25, 2006

The next question is whether the right was clearly established. … “Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”

Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswego

335 Or. 19 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 24, 2002

Therefore, they assert, the city failed to establish its immunity. … Such decisions do not qualify for discretionary immunity. See Mosley, 315 Or at 89 (describing decisions made by employees in course of day-to-day activities as not qualifying for discretionary immunity).

Chilcote v. Mitchell

166 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2001

The qualified immunity doctrine “shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper only if “under the plaintiffs version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, a reasonable officer could not have believed his conduct was unlawful

Ramirez v. Hawaii T & S Enterprises, Inc.

179 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 2002

The city bears the burden of proving that it qualifies for this immunity. Stevenson v. State of Oregon, 290 Or 3, 15 , 619 P2d 247 (1980). … This statement identifies three criteria that a government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity.

Keeland v. Yamhill County

24 Or. App. 85 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 19, 1976

, he was not qualified in this case because he was not familiar with the Yamhill County jail. … ORS 30.265(2)(d). 2 * * * * "Each assignment of error shall be clearly and succinctly stated under a separate and appropriate heading.

Clardy v. Gangitano

334 Or. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2024

His declaration clearly establishes his actions as alleged in plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint were not outside the scope of his employment. … Gangitano stated that plaintiff’s property qualified as “abandoned” under the rule and was disposed of for that reason on May 1, 2020.

State v. Grabill

34 Or. App. 639 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 1978

Whether or not we have such authority has never been clearly established. See State v. Gaylor, 12 Or App 544 , 508 P2d 250 (1973). We need riot reach that issue here because the verdicts were logically consistent. … It cannot be said that the immunizing process allowed the state is directed at defendant’s strategic or tactical situation.

Addison v. City of Baker City

258 F. Supp. 3d 1207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2017

Defendants also argue that Lohner is protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. a. … Clearly established To determine whether'a government official’s conduct violates clearly established law, “a court must ask whether it would have been clear tó a reasonable officer that the alleged conduct was unlawful in

Freeby v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc.

344 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2025

The appeal presents a single question: Does a ski area operator qualify for recre- ational use immunity despite charging a fee to use its ski lifts? … We are not bound by the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Washington law, and that case is not analogous to this one: an inner tube clearly would not qualify as “real property” under our defi- nition of “land.”

McCormick v. State

293 Or. App. 197 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2018

Under such circumstances, recreational immunity does not apply. … But below and in its primary brief on appeal, the state did not contend that it had the authority to completely disallow recreational use; its argument, as we understand it, was simply that it qualified for recreational immunity

Holman v. City of Warrenton

242 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Nonetheless, Johansson and Pearson argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their misconduct and, in any event, their actions were reasonable

Lumbreras v. Roberts

319 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2004

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (per curiam) (“Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields [officers] from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed [the conduct … at issue] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.”

Fay v. City of Portland

311 Or. 68 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1991

a claim of qualified immunity maybe established. … The only immunity in dispute in the present case at this time is absolute judicial immunity. No claim of qualified immunity has been raised or argued by the parties.

Webber v. First Student, Inc.

928 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity Bergreen raises a defense of qualified immunity in response to Webber’s § 1983 claim. … In the context of qualified immunity, the Court determines whether a right was clearly established by looking to “Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law existing at the time of the alleged act.” Cmty. House, Inc. v.

Housley v. Killinger

747 F. Supp. 1405 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 12, 1990

If established, good faith immunity is a defense to a claim for money damages against individual officials for actions which were objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established constitutional law. … The acts of Kil-linger in enforcing these policies do not abrogate the qualified immunity he has against the claims of Housley.

Garrison v. Deschutes County

334 Or. 264 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2002

On plaintiffs’ appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that: (1) the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the exercise of discretion by county employees in designing the transfer station; and (2) the county’s failure … As this court stated in Mosley , “[n]ormally, a choice within the permissible range, in order to qualify for immunity, is one that has been made by a supervisor or policy-making body.” 315 Or at 92.