Hunter v. City of Eugene

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no private right of action to vindicate constitutional violations with damages exists under Oregon’s Bill of Rights
• expressing reluctance to create any implied action for damages for violation of the state constitution, and particularly finding itself in a poor position to say what would be just compensation for violation of free speech rights
• “We hold that plaintiffs may not bring an action for damages against defendants directly under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution.”
• “Oregon’s Bill of Rights provides no textual or historic basis for implying a right to damages for constitutional violations.”
• “[P]ersons whose rights are violated by a municipality or its employes [sic] may not bring an action for damages against the municipality 8 O.R.S. 659.203(1)(d
• “Oregon’s Bill of Rights provides no textual or historical basis for implying a right to damages for constitutional violations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).