Case law

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.

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.

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.

State v. Milstead

57 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

The possibility that she was not intoxicated is clearly a subject on which she may produce evidence to rebut the state's case. … Before a fact that is the result of scientific testing is admissible, it must be established that correct testing procedures were followed.

State v. Moran

15 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1887

The authorities cited clearly declare the rule of law applicable to such case, but we think they are supported by the better reason as well. … Having wilfully refused to testify against his accomplice, has he not forfeited the immunity which the State offered him upon that sole condition ?

Evans v. Gower

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 2022

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 have … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

State v. Schoen

350 Or. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 28, 2026

Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013) (to establish plain error, a defendant must demonstrate, among other things, that the error was “obvious”). … Cite as 350 Or App 37 (2026) 43 Because any error is not obvious, we conclude that defen- dant’s claims of error do not qualify for plain error review.

Palmateer v. Reid

121 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1927

Of course, when the language used clearly and *184 explicitly expresses a condition or defeasance, the court must give it effect unless it violates some well-established legal principle. … There are many decisions which announce the common-law rule that, while the habendum clause might be resorted to to explain, enlarge or qualify the estate granted, it would not be allowed to contradict or defeat the estate

Martinez-Delacruz v. Stuart Olson Farms, Inc.

612 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2007

The defense of qualified privilege can be overcome if the alleged defamatory statements were made in bad faith or with malice. Id. … In Ram-stead, the Court reasoned that the relation of citizens to judicial proceedings is so important that “absolute immunity attaches to statements made in the course of, or incident to a judicial proceeding.” 219 Or. at

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.

Corliss v. Van Duzer

132 Or. 265 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1929

"II "That at all the times hereinafter mentioned a certain highway leading from Roseburg in Douglas county to Coos bay was one of the duly established public highways of the state of Oregon under the exclusive management … "This immunity rests upon obvious considerations of public policy, the necessities of the public service and the perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine.

Brown v. Roach

249 Or. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2012

We conclude that the record establishes, at most, one qualifying contact within the meaning of ORS 30.866. Therefore, we reverse. … “The issuance of an SPO is a serious matter, and the statutory requirements imposed by the legislature are clearly designed to ensure that such orders are imposed only when the need for such an order is clearly established

Schwab v. Moving Picture MacHine Operators Local No. 159

165 Or. 602 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 1940

Neither is there any evidence that they were not fully qualified for membership, under the union rules. … The closed shop as an instrumentality of a labor union, membership wherein is reasonably open to the public, establishes a desirable rule governing industrial enterprise.

State v. Bojorcas

14 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 1973

In order to accomplish this end, a procedure was established by which each member of the tribe was given an opportunity to elect to withdraw from the tribe and have his interest in tribal property converted into money and … The tribe clearly retains that right. But when the issue becomes who shall be beneficiaries of federal treaties, Congress has the ultimate authority to determine tribal membership. See F.

Mitchell v. City of Portland

159 Or. 91 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1938

The complaint alleges that after the plaintiff had pursued the course outlined by the city’s civil service laws to qualify for the eligible list he was appointed to the position of inspector of public works on January 13, … The county authorities, in a case like this, ought not to be told that they may countenance the intrusion with immunity, and deliver over to a usurper the emoluments of an office to which he has neither a legal nor a moral

Saunders v. State Accident Insurance Fund

40 Or. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1979

He also claims that his educational background, a bachelor’s degree in pre-med and chemistry, will not qualify him for employment as a biologist, biochemist, or as a chemist working as a quality control manager, his previous … Clearly, the agency is of the opinion claimant has sufficient education, skills and experience to obtain other employment without further education or training.

Mason v. Griffin-Valade

331 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 2024

The new section 6 would also establish a panel to review applicants for the commission, which would iden- tify a pool of qualified candidates, of which a third would be members of the largest political party, a third would … It would establish quorum and voting rules. It would establish specific criteria for the drawing of legislative districts.

State v. Lissy

85 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 1987

After the murder, LaPlante agreed to help the police in return for immunity from prosecution. She made two telephone calls to defendant, which the police recorded with her consent. … On the other hand, the same words spoken under different circumstances, e.g., to an acquaintance, would have no difficulty in qualifying.”

State v. Blossom

88 Or. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1987

Such a requirement would nullify the intent and effect of the RICO prohibitions. * * * “Congress clearly intended the Act to provide for new penal prohibitions and enhanced sanctions. … A conviction under RICO would, in fact, grant immunity for the offenses charged in the ‘pattern of racketeering.’ ” 5 In the light of our holding, defendant’s argument that the sentence for attempted theft should run concurrently

Diamond v. City of Sandy

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 20, 2025

The second step is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … After that, “in the absence of binding precedent, [courts] look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts