Case law

Obataiye-Allah v. Steward

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2020

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 … Second, the court must decide whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct. Id.

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.’”

State v. Putney

110 Or. 634 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1924

Clearly, the court committed no error in denying defendant’s application for the postponement of this trial. … It is a well-established general rule that in a prosecution for crime of rape, the state is not permitted to introduce evidence tending to prove that the defendant committed, or attempted to commit, a like offense upon a

State v. Carr

215 Or. App. 306 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 3, 2007

Those signs are not clearly readable from the area near the sidewalk. … In evaluating that challenge, *313 we noted both that a person cannot immunize himself or herself from the application of a speech-neutral law by enmeshing otherwise illegal conduct with expressive activity and that government

State v. Pittman

367 Or. 498 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2021

The trial court granted the defendants derivative-use immunity and ordered them to testify. Id. … a grant of immunity.”

Brown v. Truax

58 Or. 572 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 1911

Charlton was clearly proved, as we think it was; but, giving this fact its greatest effect, it could make no difference in this case. … It is contended that the witness Seaman was not qualified to testify as to the market value of the wood.

Barrett v. Williams

247 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 2011

The right was definitively established in Bounds v. … Barrett’s protected attorney-client privilege deprived him of equal privileges and immunities as guaranteed by Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution and Equal Protection of the Laws under the Fourteenth Amendment

Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Authority

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 2023

- sion from working in healthcare or school settings, settings with vulnerable populations—are ones that are on their face aimed at preserving public health, so as to qualify as “sanitary” requirements, as the legislature … Therefore, [p]laintiff’s case falls under the second clause of [ORS 433.416(3)],” [which states,] “ ‘A worker shall not be required as a condition of work to be immunized under this section, unless such immunization

City of Portland v. Goodwin

187 Or. 409 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1949

The court said : “ * * * In subdivision 3, roaming is qualified by the language ‘without any lawful business.’ … The ordinance does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Pinkerton v.

State Ex Rel. Schrunk v. Metz

125 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1993

However, there is no bright line rule that establishes when due process is or is not satisfied. … in state court, because the application of the state immunity law would thwart the congressional remedy * * Felder v.

State Highway Commission v. Arnold

218 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1959

At the conclusion of the effort to qualify Mr. Holbrook as a witness the trial judge concluded: “Oh, I don’t believe this man is qualified to testify as an expert. … This is clearly stated in United States v. 13.40 Acres of Land in City of Richmond, 56 F Supp 535, 538 (D.C.

Williams v. Baskett

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity At oral argument, both sides raised the issue of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are protected from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Perkins v. Department of Revenue

15 Or. Tax 381 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 19, 2001

The legislature clearly intended that if ownership or use changes, the organization must file a new statement. … The court believes it is clearly a situation where the assessor failed to timely disqualify property from exemption.

Foster v. Clark

309 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1990

Appling, supra, as being the more clearly reasoned and stating the correct rule, which is: Courts have jurisdiction and authority to determine whether a proposed initiative or referendum measure is one of the type authorized … Another city’s practice of naming and renaming streets only through a process akin to that established for the City of Portland by PCC §§ 17.93.010 et seq. may establish that the activity is “administrative” and not subject

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 549 · Oregon Tax Court · May 3, 2021

On the other hand, the court should not admit expert testimony if the finder of fact “clearly is equally qualified [to determine the facts] with- out help from opinion testimony.” Yundt, 259 Or at 259. … In the “area between the clearly qualified [trier of fact] and the clearly unqualified [trier of fact],” the court has “a certain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opin- ion testimony.”

Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resources

297 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1984

The Court of Appeals found that the rule violated the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, Section 20). Planned Parenthood et al v. … Only if the action was clearly so authorized is there any reason to decide whether the state or local government has adopted a policy that the constitution forbids. See generally State v.

Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Authority

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 2023

- sion from working in healthcare or school settings, settings with vulnerable populations—are ones that are on their face aimed at preserving public health, so as to qualify as “sanitary” requirements, as the legislature … Therefore, [p]laintiff’s case falls under the second clause of [ORS 433.416(3)],” [which states,] “ ‘A worker shall not be required as a condition of work to be immunized under this section, unless such immunization

Gard v. Henderson

95 Or. 520 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1920

owns less than an acre of land, is in conflict with Article I, Section 20 of the Constitution of the State of Oreg'on, providing that— “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities … an equivalent amount of type matter, which shall have at least two hundred bona fide subscribers living within the county in which the newspaper is published; providing *525 further, that such newspaper shall have been established

State Ex Rel. Ricco v. Biggs

198 Or. 413 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 11, 1953

Biggs, at all times herein mentioned are the duly elected, qualified and acting Circuit Judge of the State of Oregon for the Ninth Judicial District, and at all times herein mentioned you were and are exercising all of the … The securing to parties accused of crime a fair trial by an impartial jury, * * *, has ever been the solicitude of the common law. * * * “The importance of any immunity, however, does not depend so much upon constitutional

Mead v. Gordon

583 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2008

clearly established. … Thus, this Court need not reach the question of whether Mead received adequate procedural protections nor does it decide whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.