Legal Opinion · Dissent

Oberg v. Honda Motor Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 1993No. CC A8709-05897; CA A61587; SC S38436Published

1DissentPeterson, J.

I disagree with the majority on two points. I would hold that the trial court erred in admitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission documents. Second, I believe that due process requires post-verdict review beyond that which the majority finds sufficient (which, essentially, is no post-verdict review).

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is a federal “independent regulatory commission” created by Congress to regulate consumer products, by protecting the *290public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products, assisting consumers in evaluating the comparative…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. HaslipSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Henkel v. R AND BOTTLING CO.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1982
  3. Saunders v. A. M. Williams & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Rader v. Gibbons and Reed CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Johnson v. Amerco, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API