Case law

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.

Damiano v. Grants Pass School District No. 7

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2023

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 … established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

State v. Meiser

323 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 2023

or to conform their conduct to the law does not hold up under the statutory construction framework established by State v. … That rule provides, in its “classic form,” that “ ‘[i]t must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know

State v. Arellano

149 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 1997

Whether evidence qualifies for admission under the rules of evidence is a question of law. … “Demonstrate” means “to manifest clearly, certainly, or unmistakably: show clearly the existence of[.]55 Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 600 (unabridged ed. 1993).

Rubin v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2022

Qualified immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages.” Wood v. Moss, 134 S. … Qualified immunity, however, is only an immunity from suit for damages, it is not an immunity from suit for declaratory or injunctive relief. See L.A. Police Protective League v.

Callan v. Confederation of Oregon School Administrators

79 Or. App. 73 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1986

The trier of fact may, in such instance, decline to draw the permissible inference necessary to establish liability. … applicants “for a responsible position in private industry” is the more qualified.

Corliss v. Van Duzer

132 Or. 265 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1930

“This immunity rests upon obvious considerations of public policy, the necessities of the public service and the perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine. … discharge the men whom he was compelled to use might be a good reason why he should be holden to exercise reasonable care in their selection, but we do not think that under the circumstances of this case it is sufficient to establish

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489

292 Or. 266 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1981

Clearly, these social and economic objectives are the primary purpose of PECBA. … Clearly it is.

McKay Creek Valley Ass'n v. Washington County

104 Or. App. 690 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 1990

At a minimum, farm dwellings cannot be authorized before establishment of farm uses on the land * * *.” … Second, ORS 215.213(2) contains elaborate standards of its own for determining what dwellings qualify under it, but ORS 215.213(1)(g) and ORS 215.283(1)(f) do not.

Conklin v. Oregon Medical Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 2025

Most, if not all, of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are likely barred by sovereign, judicial, or qualified immunity. … Or. 2021).5 Even if the individual defendants do not have absolute immunity for either damages or injunctive relief, they are likely entitled to qualified immunity for any damages claims against them in their individual

Robertson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

17 Or. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 1974

also establish his willingness to seek gainful and suitable regular employment.” … Not only did claimant refuse offers of employment, for which he was clearly qualified by training and experience, because he “just felt he wasn’t able to handle it,” but he made no application to the Department of Vocational

State v. Farris

312 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 30, 2021

Defendant argues that given the “vagaries of human experience,” no man of common intelligence, including defendant and his probation officer, would be able to agree on what type of rela- tionship would qualify as “intimate … In that instance, where the state argued that “intimate” clearly only encompassed relationships of a sexual nature, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that “[i]n the absence of additional wording or context that establishes

Petrol Stops Northwest v. Morgan

10 Or. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1972

Service station hours are established in the written agreement signed by all station managers. … Here, the facts seem to fall rather clearly within the ambit of “service” and “remuneration.” The plaintiff set the operating hours and gas prices at its stations.

United States v. Armsbury

408 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 12, 1976

Here only 153 of the 2,705 in the qualified jury pool had failed to answer the questions on race. 12 Although the defendant need not prove prejudice to establish a violation of the Jury Selection Act, he must prove a substantial … Qualified Jury Wheels or Boxes.

Bliss v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.

212 Or. 634 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1958

defendant, Southern Pacific Company, entered into this conspiracy and combine, as alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint, with the other defendants to injure and destroy plaintiff’s investment and property, it lost its immunity … The pleading clearly indicates such was its course. The pleading revealing as it does an unquestioned right to terminate the lease, the action taken by the railroad is not tortious.

Trees v. Ordonez

354 Or. 197 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2013

Weyerhaeuser Co., 252 Or 377, 384, 449 P2d 426 (1969) (“The law does not require that in order to qualify as an expert the witness be better qualified than anyone else. … Tencer that screws protruding above the plate “clearly” would penetrate into the soft tissue of the esophagus. In addition, Dr. 

Travis v. Strubel

238 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 2010

To qualify as a predicate unwanted contact, any contact that involves speech must be a threat — that is, the sort of communication that ‘instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the … We therefore conclude that, although it was clearly in the parties’ best interest to avoid each other, the facts as related to the court do not establish a sufficient basis for issuing an SPO. Reversed.

Asher v. City of Portland

133 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1929

this immunity ends. … We include excerpts from the opinion, because they clearly distinguish it from the case at bar. In the Johnston case the action was clearly at common law.

Wallulis v. Dymowski

323 Or. 337 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1996

To establish a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must show, first, that the defendant made a defamatory statement *343 about the plaintiff. Andreason v. … On the other hand, an absolute privilege would immunize a falsehood designed to harm the object of a disgruntled employee’s wrath.

Krivolenkov v. Ferrer

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 20, 2020

A right is said to be “clearly established” when a “reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Saucier v. … Krivolenkov’s First Amendment right to film was “clearly established,” no case establishes that Trooper Ferrer’s conduct here violated that right.