Case law

Knight v. Baker

117 Or. 492 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1926

“In order to establish the offense of false imprisonment, it is only necessary on behalf of the plaintiff to show the imprisonment. … It is not claimed that the defendant is immune from prosecution for false imprisonment because he is an Indian agent: John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U. S. 529 ( 44 L. Ed. 874 , 20 Sup. Ct.

State v. Lurch

12 Or. 99 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1885

If Ms deposit of the note with Friendly could not possibly have injured the latter, the intent to injure or defraud would not have been established. … The law throws around him in such case an immunity which ought to be sacredly maintained.

Sims v. Juras

313 F. Supp. 1212 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 1969

. § 1983 to secure rights, privileges and immunities established by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Social Security Act, Title 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., and the regulations promulgated … Frank Dixon, citizens of the State of Oregon and the duly qualified, appointed and acting members of the Oregon State Public Welfare Commission, who are charged under ORS 411.060 and ORS 411.070 with establishing and enforcing

Warren v. MARION COUNTY

222 Or. 307 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1960

This the ordinance clearly does and to this extent, at least, the ordinance followed the command of the statute that appeal procedures must be provided. … Finally, it is argued that the building code ordinance violates the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 20, and that it also violates that part of Article IV, § 23 which prohibits

White v. Commissioners of Multnomah County

13 Or. 317 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1886

S., and in effect denies to citizens of the United States privileges and immunities conferred by these laws. The attempt to adopt any law upon the subject seems to have been attended by a series of blunders. … This ought never to be done unless the legislature has clearly overstepped its authority. It would certainly present an anomalous condition of affairs if the relief sought herein were granted.

Icon Groupe, LLC v. Washington County

948 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2013

The defendant had unequivocally denied Foss’s application as untimely, clearly establishing the deprivation requirement. Icon’s reliance on Schneider v. … The First Amendment right to free speech is not immune to regulation or restriction by the states.

City of Portland v. Smith

314 Or. 178 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1992

The 1960 Voters’ Pamphlet is an important resource in establishing the voters’ intent in adopting the urban renewal provision. … Property taxes on urban renewal properly clearly are a tax upon property and just as clearly do not fall within the exceptions for incurred charges and assessments for local improvements.

Forter v. Young

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 2020

A government official being sued under § 1983 is protected by qualified immunity for damages from an allegedly unlawful action unless he acted in a way that a reasonable official would understand violates a clearly established … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court must evaluate whether the alleged action amounts to a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right was clearly established at the time

Kluge v. Oregon State Bar

172 Or. App. 452 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2001

The government body claiming exemption must demonstrate that the public record qualifies for the exemption. … However, ORS 192.490(1) does not relieve the Bar of its burden to establish a record sufficient to support summary judgment.

United States v. Savath

300 F. Supp. 3d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2018

In Voisine , the Supreme Court clearly limited its holding to § 921(a)(33)(A) and unequivocally declined to extend it to § 16. 136 S.Ct. at 2280 n.4. … Because Voisine is not "clearly irreconcilable" with Dixon , Lawrence , and Parnell , those cases remain binding on this Court. Id. at 1159.

Nordenstrom v. Corizon Health, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 18, 2021

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 … For the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court will consider whether the right at issue here was clearly established on November 3, 2016.

Hamilton v. Myers

326 Or. 44 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1997

See ORS 250.085(2) (establishing the foregoing criteria for standing to challenge ballot titles certified by the Attorney General). … Petitioners have not established that the certified Caption fails to comply substantially with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a).

Union Pacific Railroad v. Runyon

320 F.R.D. 245 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 8, 2017

It is well established that federally recognized tribes cannot be compelled to join a federal action unless they unequivocally waive their sovereign immunity or Congress expressly abrogates their immunity from suit. … Or. 2005) (finding legal action against an Indian tribe is precluded unless the tribe waives its immunity or Congress expressly abrogates tribal immunity).

Bonneau

District Court, D. Oregon · May 1, 2026

Additionally, a court must dismiss a complaint on immunity grounds once it has “sufficient information to make a determination” that a defendant is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Chavez v. … However, as described below, the complaint does not establish a legally coherent theory of liability and therefore must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Gardner v. Hutson

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 2020

Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “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. Pauly, 137 S.

Uribe v. Greiner

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2019

Bomar are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of 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

Davis v. Department of Revenue

9 Or. Tax 465 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 9, 1984

ORS 314.407, establishing the time of assessment of income taxes, uses the term “due date of the return” in subsection (1) and in subsection (2)(c) and qualifies it as follows: “[T]he due date of the return (determined with … The evidence does not support a finding that a different meaning is clearly required in construing ORS 316.192.

Tiedemann v. Radiation Therapy Consultants

299 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1985

Clearly, the affidavit was much more than a general denial, it was expert testimony on the key issues in the case. Plaintiff relies on the case of W. R. Chamberlin & Co. v. … ORCP 47E. applies to cases where a party is required to provide the opinion of an expert to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

State v. Robertson

293 Or. 402 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1982

The remainder of the sentence qualifies the definition by specifying the kinds of consequences which may not be threatened in order to compel or induce the demanded conduct. … Constitutional freedom of speech did not immunize the private communication of demands and threats in such a setting. That principle has survived.

Gonyea v. Gonyea

232 Or. 367 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1962

The uncontradieted testimony of the plaintiff established that the defendant’s frequent visits adversely affected the children in a number of ways. … We are of the opinion that the mere putting into operation of a decree may in some cases qualify as a change of circumstances.