Case law

Vandolf v. Otis

1 Or. 153 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1854

Beyond all question, if the wife must be qualified as a “ settler” in one respect, she must be so qualified in all respects ; so that she must not only be of the required color, but of the required age and capacity, or she … of Oregon had married Indian women; and if it was not intended to place men so married upon the same footing with other married men, why did not Congress say so, instead of using language, by the terms of which they were clearly

Morse v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2024

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas- Villegas v. … The Court finds, as a matter of law, that Persons’ conduct did not violate a clearly established right and that his conduct is therefore protected under qualified immunity.

Hyundai Semiconductor America v. City of Eugene

14 Or. Tax 557 · Oregon Tax Court · May 5, 1999

Each of the Defendants adopted a new resolution requiring qualified businesses to make a “public benefit contribution” of up to 15 percent of the tax exemption in order to qualify for the tax exemption. … Those conditions are clearly and directly related to accomplishing those purposes. ORS 285.577(4).

Pompa v. Bowser

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 27, 2020

Point Three: Qualified Immunity Defendants claim the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Defs.’ Answer to Am. Compl. [ECF 68] at 4. Mr. … Second, the court “asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. (quoting Hope v. 1 An excerpt of Mr.

Hunt v. City of Portland

726 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 2010

The court then dismissed the claim based on qualified immunity and the fact that the constitutional violation was not sufficiently clearly established at the time the violation occurred. Id. at 1016 . … The Second Circuit only noted that this was an issue of first impression in the courts and that, as a result, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Fierro v.

Estee Lauder Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

16 Or. Tax 279 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 30, 2000

The printed order forms clearly stated that Service Corporations “does not bind Manufacturing Corporations to the filing of any order.” … See Wrigley, 505 US at 232, 235 (defining “de minimis” as an activity that “establishes a nontrivial connection with the *291 taxing State”).

Greist v. Phillips

322 Or. 281 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1995

It is well established that the legislature has the authority to determine what constitutes a legally cognizable injury. Sealey v. … ORS 30.265(1), 30.270(1) (1987). 14 The majority opinion in Hale stated that cities *314 traditionally had shared in the state’s sovereign immunity as to “governmental” functions, but that they did not enjoy such immunity

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.

Johnson v. Oregon Department of Revenue

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 28, 2020

Qualified immunity applies when a government official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … There are two prongs to analyzing qualified immunity: (1) whether the officer violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (2) whether the rights were “‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Tolan v.

Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy v. Lane County

123 Or. 144 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1927

It does not grant to a sailor immunity from arrest for debt, and refuse it to his neighbor, if they be similarly situated. The same privilege or immunity is extended by the act to all in the same situation. … Any person who is a sailor may enjoy the immunity, and any citizen desiring such immunity may have it in the words of the Constitution, ‘upon the same *161 terms,’ by becoming a sailor.'

Straube v. Larson

287 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1979

because it is not rendred for the purpose which gives birth to the immunity.” 250 Or at 74-75 . … Defendants urge that there is a qualified privilege.

State v. White

48 Or. 416 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1906

It is not aimed at disqualification, but is exercised upon qualified jurors as matter of favor to the challenger. … It is well established in this state that a codefendant not on trial cannot testify for or against a codefendant on trial, unless such codefendant has been acquitted or convicted or discharged as provided in Sections 1396

O'Neil v. Martin

258 Or. App. 819 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 2013

In August 2008, Simmons sent plaintiff a package marked “LEGAL MAIL” and that clearly indicated that it was from his law office in Oregon. … immunity, and (4) plaintiff failed to comply with the Oklahoma Governmental Torts Claims Act.

Unander v. United States National Bank

224 Or. 144 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1960

Clearly, this is an educational use within the meaning of the language of OKS 118.020(1) (c). … The burden is on a claimant to prove or establish clearly a right thereto. Stebco, Inc. v. Gillmouthe, 189 Or 427, 437 , 221 P2d 914 ; Benton County v.

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.”

Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Fasching

369 Or. 214 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2022

But, as we explain below, none of those cases establish that a “duty to report” is sufficient to qualify a record for the exception. … Cite as 369 Or 214 (2022) 245 record had “made and kept” its records, and noting that the legislative history “clearly established” the drafters’ intent “that the introducing witness have

Northwest Public Communications Council v. Oregon Public Utility Commission

805 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 27, 2011

Eleventh Amendment Immunity. … Kitzhaber establishes the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a lawsuit against PUC in federal court. 328 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.2003).

McDougal v. U.S. Forest Service

195 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 15, 2002

The team also established a goal of having improved individual park and wilderness fire management plans in effect by May 1989. … Management Ignited Fires: Those ignited by qualified Forest Service officers. These are referred to as management ignited prescribed fires. Wildfire: is defined as any fire not meeting a prescribed fire definition.

Crosby v. Portland Ry. Co.

53 Or. 496 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1909

or knowledge of the particular facts therein questioned might lessen the weight to be given to his testimony, it would not affect the competency of a witness otherwise qualified. … Moreover, the “car track” as here used clearly has reference to the space necessarily covered by defendant’s cars in passing: Potter v. Leviton, 199 Ill. 93 ( 64 N. E. 1029 ); Delaware Can. Co. v. Whitehall, 90 N.

State v. Langan

301 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1986

Hitchcock, 142 US 547, 563-85 , 12 S Ct 195 , 35 L Ed 1110 (1892). 4 The prosecution in this case had been completed *6 when defendant was convicted, and he was immune from further jeopardy for the same offense. … Neither extreme seems consistent with the legislative objective to free the qualified applicant who has completed his sentence from the stigma of a prior conviction, particularly in finding work.