| Honda Motor Company v. Oberg | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 20, 1994 Decided June 24, 1994 | |
| Full case name | Honda Motor Company, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Karl L. Oberg |
| Citations | 512U.S.415 (more) 114 S. Ct. 2331; 129L. Ed. 2d 336; 1994U.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 | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Honda Motor Company v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that anamendment to theOregon state constitution disallowingjudicial review of the size ofpunitive damages was a violation ofdue process.[1]
In aproducts liability action,Honda was foundliable for injuries received by the plaintiff in anATV accident. Honda was liable for a $5 million punitive damage award, and both the state appellate court and theOregon 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-standingcommon 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]
