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]
Text of Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512U.S. 415 (1994) is available from:CornellGoogle ScholarJustiaOyez (oral argument audio)
January 06, 2023
honda, motor, oberg, honda, motor, company, oberg, 1994, united, states, supreme, court, case, which, court, held, that, amendment, oregon, state, constitution, disallowing, judicial, review, size, punitive, damages, violation, process, honda, motor, company, . 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 ObergSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued April 20 1994Decided June 24 1994Full case nameHonda Motor Company Ltd et al Petitioners v Karl L ObergCitations512 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 341HoldingOregon s 1910 state constitutional amendment prohibiting a judicial review of jury awards violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Harry Blackmun John P StevensSandra Day O Connor Antonin ScaliaAnthony Kennedy David SouterClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgCase opinionsMajorityStevens joined by Blackmun O Connor Scalia Kennedy Souter ThomasConcurrenceScaliaDissentGinsburg joined by RehnquistLaws appliedU S Const amend XIV Contents 1 Decision 2 See also 3 References 4 External linksDecision EditIn 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 See also EditGeier v American Honda Motor Company List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 512References Edit Varat J D et al Constitutional Law Cases and Materials Concise Thirteenth Edition Foundation Press New York NY 2009 p 358 Varat p 358External links EditText of Honda Motor Co v Oberg 512 U S 415 1994 is available from Cornell Google Scholar Justia Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Honda Motor Co v Oberg amp oldid 1111672909, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
