Praggastis v. Clackamas County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Clerks may derive an immunity from their performance of actions at the direction of the court. For this immunity to exist, the clerk must be acting at the direction of the court in carrying out an authorized judicial function. That the actions in question are `ministerial' in nature, or are performed at the direction of a statute, does not exclude the possibility of immunity. A clerk `may receive immunity in his own right for the performance of a discretionary act or he may be covered by the immunity afforded the judge because he is performing a ministerial function at the direction of the judge.' Waits v. McGowan, 516 F2d 203, 206 (3d Cir 1975).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fay v. City of Portland

2. “This court recognized the existence and the limitations on the doctrine of judicial immunity in Shaw v. Moon, 117 Or 558 , 245 P 318 (1926). The common law recognized that there is a public good to be gained from the principled and fearless decision-making of judicial officers freed from concern over suits by disappointed litigants. To gain this good, it is necessary to cloak judicial officers with immunity from civil liability for their acts, so long as these acts are within the jurisdiction of the officer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fay v. City of Portland

3. “Immunity for judicial acts extends not merely to judges. Other officials who are performing acts associated with the judicial process may be protected as well. Watts v. Gerking, 111 Or 641 , 222 P 318 , 228 P 135 (1924). This court has indicated that the common-law immunity for judicial and quasi-judicial acts is part of those immunities preserved for discretionary acts under [the Oregon Tort Claims Act], ORS 30.265(3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fay v. City of Portland