Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary

4 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, 580โ€“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, 408โ€“09, 100 P. 937 (1909) (same). The majority does not grapple with those concerns.

  2. Smothers v. Gresham Transfer

    332 Or. 83 (Or. 2001)   Cited 131 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer's duty to warn employee of known risk is a common law tort right that can be redressed in civil courts only after it was denied through worker's compensation

    This court has held that the command "shall" in Article I, section 10, is a statement prescribing how government must conduct its functions. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297, 301-02, 736 P.2d 173 (1987). The first clause of Article I, section 10, provides that "[n]o court shall be secret" and that justice "shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay * * *."

  3. Hale v. Port of Portland

    308 Or. 508 (Or. 1990)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that a statute that abolishes or limits a claim against a public entity does not violate Article I, section 10

    When a statute, contrary to the opening clause, declares that some court procedures may be conducted in secret, the court need only hold that the statute is invalid and cannot be followed. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297, 736 P.2d 173 (1987). The second clause can be administered by the courts themselves, disregarding, if necessary, any statutes or actions by other officials that would impose a "purchase" of justice or an improper "delay."

  4. Eckles v. State

    306 Or. 380 (Or. 1988)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that an act that purports to abrogate the state's contractual obligation violates the Oregon constitution's provision based on the contract clause of the United States constitution, article I, ยง 10, while an act that only requires actions that violate the contract is a breach that does not support a contract clause violation

    Moreover, the state cannot avoid a constitutional command by "balancing" it against another of the state's interests or obligations, such as protection of the "vital interests" of the people. See Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297, 305, 736 P.2d 173 (1987). Limits on the contractual obligations of the state must be found within the language or history of Article I, section 21, itself.