Honda v. Oberg

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Andrew L. Frey (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
93-644
Petitioner: 
Honda
Respondent: 
Oberg
Opinion: 
512 U.S. 415 (1994)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Honda v. Oberg , 512 U.S. 415 (1994)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_644)
Facts of the Case: 

Karl Oberg was driving an all-terrain vehicle when it overturned, causing him severe, permanent injuries. The jury in his trial assessed almost $1 million in compensatory damages, and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. A 1910 amendment to the Oregon state constitution prohibited judicial review of jury awards.

Question: 

Does the Oregon prohibition on judicial review of jury awards violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Conclusion: 

Yes. The denial of judicial review creates the possibility that juries might make arbitrary and excessive awards without offering a way to adjust them. The common-law practice of allowing judicial review for jury awards is important in ensuring that juries do not ignore guidelines.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for Honda, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Ginsburg's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Wrote a dissent
Ginsburg

Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens