Case law

State v. Whiteaker

118 Or. 656 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1926

This evidence tended to establish a course of dealing in the “securities.” … McCalla, supra; “If the advice of counsel could afford immunity to one accused of the violation of a penal statute, it would result in the advice of an attorney being paramount tb the law.

Strom v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 28, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants also oppose Strom’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Resp. at 2.) … Courts determine whether qualified immunity applies by analyzing “whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right[,]” and, if so, “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the [official’s]

Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University

157 Or. App. 502 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 1998

failure to make the privileges or immunities available to that class can be justified by genuine differences between the disparately treated class and those to whom the privileges and immunities are granted. … Moreover, the class clearly is defined in terms of ad hominem, personal and social characteristics. The question *524 then is whether plaintiffs are members of a suspect class.

Koller v. Schmaing

254 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2012

You’re not qualified in this state to represent Companion Pet Clinic— “DR. ROLLER: That’s correct. “THE COURT: —82nd Street, LLC. “DR. ROLLER: That’s correct. … shall be immune from an action for civil damages as a result thereof.”

Garza v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Defendant Baker is entitled to qualified immunity. Def. Mot. Summ. J. 11. … “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.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

United Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

258 F. Supp. 735 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 1966

Were the “references” published clearly limited to parties explicitly identified, or identified as participants in the CBS tests? … The mantle of partial immunity might well cover both.

Haviland Hotels Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission

20 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 20, 1975

In speaking of the term “where food is cooked and served” in Art I, § 39, Oregon Constitution, the court said : “* * * Clearly the voters, in making that amendment to our Constitution, had in mind restaurants and other eating … It seems manifest that * * * the voters *119 thought of eating establishments as contrasted to saloons.

State Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego

291 Or. 878 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1981

We allowed review to examine whether this conclusion went too far to immunize local fiscal devices directed at land development from compliance with the statewide land use goals. … Also in a new proceeding, perhaps LUBA or LCDC may choose to refine its criteria when fiscal devices by their purpose or design qualify as land use regulations, which the Court of Appeals thought so farreaching and inexact

Simpson Timber Co. v. Great Salt Lake Minerals & Chemicals Corp.

296 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 1969

The flume was constructed *245 through the joint efforts of four parties : the defendant, a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Utah, the owner of the flume; the plaintiff, a Washington corporation qualified … Thus, the first criterion is clearly met. 2) Did the cause of action arise out of the business transaction ? It did.

Coffelt v. Pena

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 1, 2021

On the issue of qualified immunity, however, the Court clarifies that the specific constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of the conduct because Defendants could have “reasonably but mistakenly … City of San Diego, 823 F.3d 1223, 1233 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Because the standard for probable cause is well settled, the question with respect to whether an unlawful arrest violated clearly established law is whether it is

Medford Firefighters Ass'n, Local 1431 v. City of Medford

40 Or. App. 519 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1979

ORS 243.746 establishes procedures for selection of an arbitrator and for the arbitration itself. … In a city, not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by the initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified voters may be required to order a referendum on legislation

Apex Transportation Co. v. Garbade

32 Or. 582 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1898

Such, to my mind, is clearly the situation of the present controversy. … The facts were practically admitted, and the court simply applied the established rule and took from the jury a matter of which they were precluded from taking cognizance.

Saula v. City of Newport

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 26, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resources

63 Or. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1983

Here, the group of women qualifying for assistance who seek medically necessary services relating to pregnancy does constitute a class apart from purely administrative action. … Thus, Wade established that the state’s interest in protecting potential human life during the first two trimesters is no greater than the mother’s interest in protecting *61 her health.

McCann v. Rosenblum

355 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2014

Among other changes, IP 47 would create a new administrative agency, the Oregon Distilled Liquor Board (ODLB), establish regulatory requirements for whole- salers and qualified retailers, dispose of OLCC property, and wind … sales of liquor by qualified retailers; imposes taxes roughly com- parable to current state markup; establishes regulatory requirements for sales and distribution.

Mendiola v. Graham

139 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1932

On October 1, 1930, the county grazing board met and after a hearing on said petition made and entered an order establishing said grazing district as described in the petition and notice for its establishment. … The method might have been more clearly defined, yet it would seem to be a reasonable way of fixing boundaries.

Reisen v. Blue Cross Blue Shield

115 Or. App. 396 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 1992

When the court does not have such knowledge, the insurer must adduce evidence to establish the fact and the claimant may rebut it with other evidence. … As I say, particularly when you put together the herpes zoster with the monilial glossitis, you’ve got two instances of evidence of suppressed immunity.

Gray v. McGinnis

277 Or. App. 679 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 20, 2016

BACKGROUND Petitioner and respondent met through petitioner’s work for an establishment called the Sinful Fashion Boutique. … I am looking at the contacts after, when clearly she by her own behavior has decided she no longer wants to have contact with him.” Petitioner testified that the messages began “a few days” after November 8.

State v. Jesse

360 Or. 584 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2016

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a certain latitude of decision in excluding or receiv- ing expert opinion testimony.” Id. at 259.

Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center

307 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1989

The only subsection of ORS 19.010(2) by which the order at issue might possibly qualify as a judgment is ORS 19.010(2) (a). … As the quotation indicates, the order’s relevant language was clearly dispositive, in contrast to the language of the order entered by the tax court in this case.