Oregon Law Review : Vol. 96, No. 2 (2018)
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Now showing 1 - 15 of 15
Item Open Access The Practical Consequences of Caps on Damages(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Daniels, Stephen; Sharkey, Catherine; Miller, Dave; Welborn, GordonTranscript of a symposium panel discussion.Item Open Access The Remedy Clause, Reexamination of Verdicts, and Separation of Powers Principles(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Eiva, Travis; Marmaduke, Susan; Hallman, W. Eugene; Schuman, DavidTranscript of a symposium panel discussion.Item Open Access The Jury Trial Right(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Peck, Robert S.; Durham, Christine; Wolff, Michael; Hannaford-Agor, PaulaTranscript of a symposium panel discussion.Item Open Access The Jury Trial and Remedy Clauses(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Chemerinsky, ErwinTranscript of a symposium presentation.Item Open Access Setting the Stage(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Schuman, DavidHorton vs. Oregon Health & Science University.Item Open Access Damage Caps and Access to Justice: Lessons from Texas(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Daniels, Stephen; Martin, JoanneItem Open Access Oregon's History on Caps and the Outlook After Horton(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Dahab, NadiaThe point of this article is to examine how tort reform happened in Oregon.Item Open Access The Constitutional Authority of Oregon Juries: Drawing the Line on Legislative Encroachment(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Eiva, TravisThis Article questions the Oregon Supreme Court’s analysis and, ultimately, its holding in Horton. Specifically, the Article reviews the history of the civil jury trial, leading up to its inclusion in the Oregon Constitution. It compares that history to the historical conclusions emphasized by the Horton court to justify its decision. The comparison suggests that the court’s reasoning in Horton is flawed by the omission of important historical context and events. The Article concludes that Horton was wrongly decided and that the court should revisit the matter at the earliest opportunity to restore the protections afforded to Oregon’s citizens by the civil jury.Item Open Access After Horton—Damages Caps and the Remedy Clause(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Hallman, W. EugeneThe cap on noneconomic damages of ORS 31.710(1) was declared unconstitutional in 1999 as a violation of the right to a jury trial under article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution. Lakin, in turn, was overruled by Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University. With the removal of the jury trial underpinnings of Lakin, the constitutionality of noneconomic damages caps is again in play.Item Open Access Horton: The Remedy Clause and the Right to Jury Trial Provisions of the Oregon Constitution(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Marmaduke, SusanThe Horton decision, its meaning, and its significance for statutes that eliminate causes of action or curtail the recoverable damages for various torts have been the subject of much debate and litigation. The Oregon Court of Appeals recently issued several decisions applying Horton, at least some of which may be reviewed by the Oregon Supreme Court.Item Open Access The Right to Trial by Jury as a Fundamental and Substantive Right and Other Civil-Trial Constitutional Protections(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Peck, Robert S. Peck; Chemerinsky, ErwinJury trials and access to the courts more generally have sustained unwarranted decades-long attacks. Assaults on these fundamental cornerstones of our civil justice system have not just warped the views of the public and policymakers, but also insinuated themselves into the outlooks of the academy and the judiciary, undermining the fundamental and critically important role that juries and litigation play in securing liberty, equality, and justice. Fed by a political operation that seeks to tilt the legal playing field in its favor, judicial decisions, rules governing lawsuits, and the law itself have come to embrace ahistorical and empirically invalid entreaties, skewing the law and its operation in favor of the most powerful interests at the expense of those who most need the civil justice system to provide a neutral forum to resolve disputes.Item Open Access Foreword: Fundamental Rights or Paper Tigers?(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Clarke, Kathryn H.Why arrange a symposium in the wake of the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University? To some of us, the answer may seem so obvious that the question borders on the inane, but the process of answering it helped clarify for me the assistance that such a discussion can provide to the litigants who address, and the courts that resolve, the issues presented by Horton.Item Open Access Symposium: The Jury Trial and Remedy Guarantees: Fundamental Rights or Paper Tigers? (Introduction)(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Oregon Law Review 2017–18 Editorial BoardItem Open Access Critical Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, and Market Failure(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Chung, John J.This article addresses the issue of cybersecurity and threats to critical infrastructure from individuals, nation-states, and/or groups of individuals (working on behalf of or independently of nation-states).Item Open Access On Objects and Sovereigns: The Emerging Frontiers of State Standing(University of Oregon School of Law, 2018-04-10) Brescia, Raymond H.For nearly as long as public law litigation1 has been a fixture of the political, social, economic, and jurisprudential landscape of the United States, some judges and interest groups have sought ways to scale it back. Many praise the social change that has taken root as a result of such efforts; whether it is the fruits of desegregation, marriage equality, or environmental justice litigation, public law litigation brought about significant social change and altered the social justice landscape of the United States in profound ways. At the same time, whether through the construction of barriers in the courts or legislative efforts that have sought to scale back opportunities for such actions, the critics of public law litigation have undertaken a sustained effort to weaken the ability of public law plaintiffs and their advocates to pursue social change through the courts.