Hunter v. City of Eugene
Decision Date | 22 February 1990 |
Citation | 787 P.2d 881,309 Or. 298 |
Parties | , 58 Ed. Law Rep. 1341, 17 Media L. Rep. 1507 Joan HUNTER; Peter H. Ogan; Don Cataldo; Nancy Oft-Rose; Richard Doering; Curt Sexton; Peter Mandrapa; Tom Wiper; Lawrence Von Seeger; Geraldine Tomseth; Susan Chubb; Paul Hymes; Patricia Mahoney; Donald Adkins; Linda Ague; Kathleen Susan Bear; Dan O'Neil; Ken Shindledecker; Gordon Roberts, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF EUGENE, a municipal corporation; William L. De Forrest; Everett Hall; Michael Gleason; Merle Olson; Dave Arts; Pat Ryan; Enes Smith; Darwin Dragt; Rick Gilliam; Mike Southey; Roland Carter; Gary Van Riper; Dennis Baker; Paul Schwartz; Jim Fields; Verne Hoyer; Rick Raynor; Mike Galick; Mike Cline; Don Norenberg; David Biggs; Tom Brett; James Green; Robert Wilson; Gary West; William Speicher; Jan Clements and other John Doe Defendants Twenty-Five Through Fifty, Defendants. USDC 88-6164-E; SC S36101. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert D. Durham, of Durham, Drummonds, Smith & Wiser, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for plaintiffs.
William F. Gary, of Harrang, Long, Watkinson, Arnold & Laird, P.C., Eugene, argued the cause for defendants. With him on the brief were Jens Schmidt and Milo R. Mecham, Eugene.
John Paul Graff, of Graff & O'Neil, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae American Civ. Liberties Union of Oregon, Inc.
David A. Ernst, of Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae The Ass'n of Oregon Counties. With him on the brief was Douglas R. Andres, Portland.
Before PETERSON, C.J., and CARSON, LINDE, * JONES, GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN and FADELEY, JJ.
This is a certified question proceeding. ORS 28.200 to ORS 28.255. Plaintiffs, a group of teachers and a news reporter, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against the City of Eugene (the City) and officials and police officers employed by the City (the Officials and Officers).
The remaining plaintiffs, who are also teachers, allege that they were engaged in protected expressive activity in support of the teacher strike in Eugene, and were arrested by Eugene police officers, and that the arrests interfered with their legitimate free speech rights, liberty, and freedom of movement, and caused substantial general and special damages.
All plaintiffs seek to impose liability for damages on defendants City of Eugene, its administrators and police officers for the assaults on and arrests of plaintiffs, as well as to recover reasonable attorney fees. Plaintiffs alleged seven claims for relief:
1. Violations of First and Fourteenth Amendments;
2. Tort action under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution;
3. Assault and battery;
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
5. False arrest and imprisonment;
6. Defamation;
7. Negligence.
Defendants moved to dismiss the state constitutional claim on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They contended that Article I, section 8, does not give rise to a private right of action for damages. The District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for certification because it appeared that there is no controlling Oregon precedent, and this court accepted review. The certified questions are:
We begin by examining the first certified question because, if the answer to that question is no, we need not answer the other two certified questions. We hold that plaintiffs may not bring an action for damages against defendants directly under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, which provides:
"No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."
Violation of a state constitutional right does not presently per se result in a civil or criminal sanction. The first certified question thus presents an issue of first impression for this court. On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court has in this generation recognized an implied private right of action for damages for federal constitutional violations, although not without deep and spirited debate on the propriety of, preferred analytic methods for, and limitations upon such actions. See, e.g., Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980).
Of course, the judiciary has no authority without legislation to put a person in jail for violating a constitutional right. By like token, we are very reluctant to impose any civil responsibility in the form of damages for violation of such a right, absent specific legislation or clear legislative intent. Cf. IBob Godfrey Pontiac v. Roloff, 291 Or. 318, 329, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barcik v. Kubiaczyk
... ... Eugene Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 301 Or. 358, 367-68 n. 9, 723 P.2d 298 (1986) (noting that the court has not ... 10 In Hunter v. City of Eugene, 309 Or. 298, 304, 787 P.2d 881 (1990), this court held that a private right of ... ...
-
Moss v. United States Secret Serv.
... ... the State defendants; and for Fourth Amendment violations and common law claims against the City defendants. R & R at 71. I also agree with Judge Clarke that defendants have not shown, at least at ... (2007 R & R 2.) Relying on the Oregon Supreme Court decision Hunter v. City of Eugene, 309 Or. 298, 787 P.2d 881 (1990), the court explained that persons whose rights ... ...
-
Binette v. Sabo
... ... Ann M. Parrent, New York City, filed a brief for the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation as amicus curiae ... See Hunter v. Eugene, 309 Or. 298, 303-304, 787 P.2d 881 (1990) (creation of private right of action for ... ...
-
Katzberg v. Regents of University of Cal.
... ... 494, 601 P.2d 1030] , fn. 17; Bauer-Schweitzer Malting Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1973) 8 Cal.3d 942, 946, [106 Cal.Rptr. 643, 506 P.2d 1019] ) or ... , based in part upon availability of alternative remedies and deference to legislature); Hunter v. City of Eugene (1990) 309 Or. 298, 787 P.2d 881, 883-884 (no damages for alleged state "free ... ...
-
Arrested development: an analysis of the Oregon Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence in the post-Linde years.
...only student who had not yet graduated when the court of appeals entered judgment). (288) See id. at 770. (289) See id. at 777-81. (290) 787 P.2d 881 (Or. (291) Barcik, 895 P.2d. at 775. (292) Id. at 776. (293) See id. (noting one student's claim was not moot, because his academic records i......
-
Chapter § 12.5
...will not imply a private right of action for damages for violations of the Oregon Constitution. Hunter v. City of Eugene, 309 Or 298, 304, 787 P2d 881 (1990) (no private right of action for governmental violations of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution) Just as the legislature ......
-
Chapter §16.4 REMEDIES
...Portland, 243 Or App 133, 144-50, 262 P3d 782 (2011) (applying principle). §16.4-2 Damages In Hunter v. City of Eugene, 309 Or 298, 302, 787 P2d 881 (1990), the Oregon Supreme Court held that "plaintiffs may not bring an action for damages against defendants directly under Article I, sectio......
-
A cause of action for damages under the state constitution.
...infra notes 85-99 and accompanying text. (40) Bivens, 403 U.S. at 411-12 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). See, e.g., Hunter v. City of Eugene, 787 P.2d 881, 884 (Or. 1990) (recognizing the legislature as the proper branch of government to create a cause of action for violations of the state (41)......