Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary

2 Citing cases

  1. Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., Corp.

    359 Or. 168 (Or. 2016)   Cited 76 times
    Concluding that the damages cap does not infringe the "inviolate" jury right

    4 Furthermore, a plaintiff's ability to collect a judgment is not a benefit of constitutional dimension and can have no place in the court's constitutional analysis. See Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297, 305, 736 P.2d 173 (1987) (witness's interest in secrecy is not of constitutional dimension in Article I, section 10, analysis); Mattson v. Astoria, 39 Or. 577, 580–81, 65 P. 1066 (1901) (when plaintiff has claim against individual employee, plaintiff is not wholly without remedy); Batdorff v. Oregon City, 53 Or. 402, 408–09, 100 P. 937 (1909) (same). The majority does not grapple with those concerns.

  2. Stranahan v. Meyer, Inc.

    331 Or. 38 (Or. 2000)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that state constitutional right to initiate laws and constitutional amendments does not confer right to solicit signatures for initiative petitions on private property over owner's objection

    As a preliminary matter, we note that, when construing provisions of the Oregon Constitution, it long has been the practice of this court "to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the framers [of the provision at issue] and of the people who adopted it." Jones v. Hoss, 132 Or. 175, 178, 285 P. 205 (1930); see also Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297, 304, 736 P.2d 173 (1987) (demonstrating that framers' intent, rather than isolated evidence of historical practices, governs constitutional interpretation). To ascertain that intent, this court has stated: