Beason v. Harcleroad
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants entered after the court granted their motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
Defendants are the State of Oregon, Lane County District Attorney Harcleroad and Deputy District Attorneys Nissman, Hagen and Larson.1 The amended complaint contains claims for what plaintiff styles declaratory relief, malicious prosecution, infliction of severe emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy and violation of federal constitutional rights. Within some of these claims,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Forrester v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Briscoe v. LaHueSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Knapper v. ConnickSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1996
- Meyer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
- Glubka v. LongCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Thompson v. Telephone & Data Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Hale v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.