Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg

Honda Motor Company v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an amendment to the Oregon state constitution disallowing judicial review of the size of punitive damages was a violation of due process.[1]

Honda Motor Company v. Oberg
Argued April 20, 1994
Decided June 24, 1994
Full case nameHonda Motor Company, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Karl L. Oberg
Citations512 U.S. 415 (more)
114 S. Ct. 2331; 129 L. Ed. 2d 336; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4825; 62 U.S.L.W. 4627; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. ¶ 13,895; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4761; 94 Daily Journal DAR 8844; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 341
Holding
Oregon's 1910 state constitutional amendment prohibiting a judicial review of jury awards violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
ConcurrenceScalia
DissentGinsburg, joined by Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Decision

In a products liability action, Honda was found liable for injuries received by the plaintiff in an ATV accident. Honda was liable for a $5 million punitive damage award, and both the state appellate court and the Oregon Supreme Court declined to review the award for excessiveness based on an amendment to the Oregon constitution. The Supreme Court of United States held that the amendment to the Oregon constitution violated due process. The Court held that judicial review of punitive damage awards for excessiveness was a long-standing common law tradition that was critical in protecting against arbitrary deprivations of property, and that Oregon had not instituted a substitute procedure to maintain these protections.[2]

gollark: no.
gollark: no.
gollark: But this is not accurate. It assumes the only options are "no god" or "basically Christian god".
gollark: Pascal's Wager basically goes "if no god, belief doesn't have costs anyway (wrong, since it takes time and may make your thinking more irrational); if god, non-belief means infinite badness (hell), belief means infinite goodness (heaven), so rationally you should believe".
gollark: There *may* be a god of some kind who rewards you for believing in them and their afterlife and such, but there is an infinity of possible gods including ones like "allocates you to heaven or hell entirely at random", "entirely indistinguishable from no god", "sends you to hell if you believe in the *other* god", "incomprehensible eldritch abomination" or "literal bees".

See also

References
  1. Varat, J.D. et al. Constitutional Law Cases and Materials, Concise Thirteenth Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2009, p. 358
  2. Varat, p. 358
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.