Rogers v. Saylor
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentYoung, J.
There is a straightforward resolution to the problems presented by this case. Simply stated, a violation of 42 USC § 1983 was actionable in Oregon courts before the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) was amended to define “tort” to include section 1983 claims. Or Laws 1975, ch 609, § 12. That amendment did not affect the jurisdiction of state courts; rather, it created an alternative basis, with alternative benefits and detriments, for bringing a section 1983 claim. The damages that are recoverable depend on the course that a plaintiff chooses to follow.
Circuit courts are courts of general…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Martinez v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Testa v. KattSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Blankenship v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.