Legal Opinion

Honeywell v. Sterling Furniture Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 1990No. TC 16-87-09481; CA A50296; SC S36688PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*208GILLETTE, J.

The questions in this case concern how much a jury should be told concerning to whom the distribution of an award of punitive damages will be made1 and whether a plaintiffs attorney’s share of a jury’s award of punitive damages may be used to offset a court’s award of attorney fees that a plaintiff may receive under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). We hold that a jury should be told nothing concerning the distribution of an award of punitive damages, and that no part of such an award may be used to offset attorney fees otherwise awardable under the Oregon UTPA.

FACTS

I…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Noe v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State Ex Rel. Young v. CrookhamOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  3. State Ex Rel. Redden v. Discount Fabrics, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Martin v. CambasOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Andor v. United Air Lines, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Service Corp. International v. GuerraTexas Supreme Court · 2011
  2. United States National Bank v. BogeOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Badger v. Paulson Investment Co., Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  4. DeMendoza v. HuffmanOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Oberg v. Honda Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1993

44 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