The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, April 20, 1994
Decision: Friday, June 24, 1994
Issues: Economic Activity, Punitive Damages Liability

Advocates

Andrew L. Frey (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondents)

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for Honda, 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a dissent
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Ginsburg's dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Honda v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_644/>
(last visited ).