Case law

Bong

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 18, 2026

immunity, because her rights were not ‘“clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … (California governor’s “stay-at-home order did not violate clearly established law” because “[i]n March 2020, Jacobson v.

Clemens v. United States

295 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 1968

The instructions included a provision 3 which clearly indicated *1341 that the “fall of the hammer” would not create a present interest in the highest bidder, but that he would be awarded the contract if he was qualified … qualified, responsible, and willing- to accept the contract.” .

Leonard v. Ekwall

124 Or. 351 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1928

Multnomah and providing that the present incumbent of that office be created a circuit judge of the fourthj judicial district and exercise all the powers and jurisdiction of a circuit judge until his successor is elected^ and qualified … If for any reason he was incapacitated, or absent from the county, the county judge would be authorized to perform the functions of the circuit judge relating to probate business, but would be immune from the operation of

Howell v. Boyle

353 Or. 359 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2013

Affirming the validity of the immunity provision, the court wrote that *393 “all of our decisions have recognized that a city may be given, not absolute, but conditional immunity from liability for street accidents — conditioned … Later in his concurrence, Justice Linde observed that “the court has allowed legislative immunization of cities from tort liability only on condition that the individuals who are personally responsible for harm qualifying

Lund v. Arbonne International, Inc.

132 Or. App. 87 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 1994

We conclude that the agreement established an “at will” relationship. We also reject plaintiffs argument that Arbonne’s policy statement changed the “at will” relationship. … Each defendant claimed a qualified privilege. A statement that is otherwise defamatory is privileged if it is uttered under such circumstances that the law grants immunity to the speaker. Wattenburg v.

Carroll v. Cupp

49 Or. App. 773 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1980

It follows that the trial court’s acceptance of one inference, to the exclusion of the other, was immune from re-examination by this court. 2 Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 , 443 P2d 621 (1968). … Petitioner’s evidence established only that his sentence, not his plea, was the product of inadequate representation.

In re Ah Lee

5 F. 899 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 19, 1880

They are: ‘ No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process … They then mean a course of legal proceedings according to those rulos and principles which have been established in our jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights.

Reagan v. EOCI

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2021

Tackett and Officer Johnson 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.

Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Duncan

499 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 21, 1980

Although the government may waive its sovereign immunity from contract claims, it has not done so here. See Lee v. … The government acknowledges that judicial review of administrative actions is the rule, and that nonreviewability is an exception that must be clearly demonstrated.

Penk v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education

93 F.R.D. 45 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 9, 1981

This class is clearly too large to join all members. Are there questions of law and fact common to the putative class? Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). … Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 99 S.Ct. 1139 , 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) the Court stated that in enacting § 1983 Congress did not intend to override a state’s traditional 11th Amendment immunity.

State v. Lane

341 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2006

Defendant, while conceding that he committed third-degree escape, argues that he did not commit second-degree escape because the courtroom did not qualify as a correctional facility. … Those two codefendants clearly remained in constructive custody, and the sheriff was the symbol of that status.

Rice v. Comtek Manufacturing of Oregon, Inc.

766 F. Supp. 1550 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 12, 1990

Innuendo, however, cannot “establish a new charge or enlarge or charge the previous words.” Marr v. Putnam, 196 Or. 1, 23 , 246 P.2d 509 (1952). … Plaintiff’s Response Plaintiff contends defendants must plead the qualified privilege as a qualified defense.

Yundt v. D & D BOWL, INC.

259 Or. 247 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1971

There are situations, such as Sandow , where a jury clearly is not equally well qualified and needs help to find the truth. … 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 receiving expert opinion testimony.

Mayfield v. United States

504 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 26, 2007

Massey’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, or lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative for summary judgment was denied; (2) defendants Werder’s, Green’s and Wieners’ motion to dismiss or alternative … motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim or alternatively, for summary judgment was denied; and (3) defendants DOJ’s and FBI’s motion to dismiss counts

State v. Wilson

20 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 10, 1975

This exception is limited to evidence only of the making of the complaint, however, and does not immunize testimony relating the details of any such declaration. State v. … established rule that the witness cannot state the identity of the alleged assailant.

California Table Grape Commission v. Health Division

109 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1991

ORS 616.073(3)(a) clearly prohibits the use of sulfites by restaurants. The serving of food previously treated with sulfites by food processors or shippers is not the use of sulfites. … Although ORS 616.077(1) 2 directs the Division to adopt rules necessary to implement the policy established in ORS 616.073, ORS 616.077(2) specifically and clearly exempts licensed food processors from the prohibition against

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 212 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 9, 1997

As amended, the taxpayer no longer qualified for the deduction. The taxpayer contended that such a retroactive change in the law violated the due process requirements. … The court also noted that Congress acted promptly and established only “a modest period of retroactivity.” Id. at 29 .

Tucker v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080902d (or.tax 1-14-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 14, 2009

Evans wrote that "it is clearly the county assessor's responsibility to review all `relevant evidence' to determine if the land is properly classifiable as forestland." (Def's Statement of Facts at 2.) … When the legislature enacted the special assessment of western Oregon forestland, the program was established "as a means of: "(a) Recognizing the long-term nature of the forest crop and fostering the public policy of Oregon

Eugene Education Ass'n v. Eugene School District 4J

58 Or. App. 140 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1982

. * * *” *143 The agreement establishes a grievance process. … *144 condition of employment under §2.8 of the agreement, this dispute qualifies as an appropriate subject for arbitration.’

State v. Mays

269 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2015

An “inference need not inevitably follow from the established facts; rather, if the established facts support multiple reasonable inferences, the jury may decide which inference to draw.” State v. … Williams [’s] conduct at the first trial,” noting that it “recall [ed]” that conduct “very clearly.”