Case law

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

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

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.

Christensen v. Carter

261 Or. App. 133 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2014

two qualifying contacts for each respondent. … As for Bosket, we agree with the trial court that petitioner failed to establish two qualifying contacts. However, as for Carter, we conclude that there were sufficient contacts to support the issuance of an SPO.

Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2023

This Court further finds that the Individual-Capacity Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages . . . .” Wood v. … “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.

Ragaway v. City of Portland

315 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 2021

It provides: “108.1 Board of appeals established. … City of Portland adopted a policy requiring taxi drivers to meet certain crite- ria before obtaining a license, one of its employees licenses a taxi driver who does not qualify, and as a result that driver causes harm. *

Afzal v. Public Employees Retirement Board

239 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 2010

that he was unable to perform “any work for which qualified.” … In response, PERB argues that claimant’s burden of proof clearly required him to establish that he is incapable of performing any work for which he is otherwise qualified and that, because neither Bruce Bell nor Lynne Bell

Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary

303 Or. 297 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1987

Additionally, even if the prosecution makes the necessary showing, the court may refuse to compel the witness to testify if it “finds that to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest.” … We have not been made aware, however, of any well-established tradition in 1859 to close the sort of hearing mandated by ORS 136.617.

State v. EHRENSING

232 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2009

ORS 475.304(5) is part of a statute that establishes the marijuana grow site registration system and rules. … for immunity from criminal prosecution.

Walton v. Laney

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2021

Even if Nofziger violated the due process clause, however, Nofziger is entitled to qualified immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages,” Wood v. … The Court finds, therefore, that Nofziger is entitled to qualified immunity.

Egge v. Lane County

276 Or. 889 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1976

In other words, we have now held that a showing of malice and want of probable cause is not necessary to establish liability on the bond for wrongfully obtaining a preliminary injunction. … Sigmund, supra, but the case is clearly distinguishable on the facts. Pearson involved a suit between two private parties who had contracted regarding timber harvest on plaintiff’s land.

Troubled Asset Solutions, LLC v. Wilcher

365 Or. 397 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 2019

We noted that the result in such cases will be fact dependent, and we quoted Pomeroy's treatise on equity jurisprudence to underscore that " 'even clearly established negligence' " may be insufficient to deny reformation … The court went on to quote Pomeroy's treatise, in a manner particularly relevant here: " '[E]ven a clearly established negligence may not of itself be sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party

Evans v. Myrick

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 18, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Ninth Circuit has noted that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

Atkinson v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 558 · Oregon Tax Court · May 11, 1964

Some words frequently used in statutes are inherently ambiguous because the legislature is establishing a standard which will vary with the facts of each case. “Primarily engaged” are such words. … Using this definition, plaintiff is entitled to its claimed offset because its qualifying business in Oregon is clearly substantial.

Farr v. U.S. West, Inc.

815 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 30, 1992

This preemption clause is “deliberately expansive and designed to establish pension plan regulations as exclusively a federal concern.” Olson v. … held that, even if plaintiff *1363 could establish the existence of the program, it would nevertheless be preempted by ERISA because plaintiffs claim ultimately “related to” administration of the Plan.

Tumac Lumber Co. v. United States

625 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 25, 1985

In establishing a DISC, an exporter would form a corporation under any state law, purchase $2,500 of its stock, open a bank account for the DISC and establish minimal books and records. … An assignment may be oral or written and no special form is necessary provided that the transfer is clearly intended as a present assignment of the interest held by the assignor.

Gregory v. Salem General Hospital

175 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1944

It, clearly, is not an ecclesiastical corporation. Hence, it was formed pursuant to the Laws of 1864 and not under the Act of 1872. … The courts, however, are not in accord in the theories advanced for such immunity.

Gold v. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation

478 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 1979

. § 477 , waived its immunity with the consent of Congress. Plaintiffs rely on Martinez v. … The Administrative Procedure Act obligates the BIA to follow the procedures established by Congress as well as those established by its own regulations and, if it fails to do it, a reviewing court can set aside agency action

York v. Morgan

16 Or. App. 76 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1973

We there held that a community college student did not establish eligibility when he did not unequivocally testify that he was ready to drop school if necessary in order to accept any suitable work. … When claimant stated she would not accept work except on the afternoon shift, she clearly made herself unavailable for work of the character that she was qualified to perform. * * #” Affirmed.

L.O.K v. Greater Albany Public School District 8J

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 28, 2022

The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to address two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity protects an official from reasonable mistakes about the legality of his actions. Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2003).