7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Cambasgreen2 sentences2006Ry. & N. Co., 12 Or. 392, 404 , 7 P. 508 (1885); see also Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or. 257, 261 , 293 P. 601 (1930) ("The generally accepted doctrine is that [punitive] damages are awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others, or, according to some authorities, by way of example."). 2006Ry. & N. Co., 12 Or. 392, 404 , 7 P. 508 (1885); see also Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or. 257, 261 , 293 P. 601 (1930) ("The generally accepted doctrine is that [punitive] damages are awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others, or, according to some authorities, by way of example."). | 3 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roshak v. Leathers
green
2 sentences1993Roshak v. Leathers, 277 Or 207, 211 , 560 P2d 275 (1977) says: “For many years it has been recognized in this state that ‘[t]he generally accepted doctrine [of punitive damages] is that such damages are awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others, or, according to some authorities, by way of example.’ Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or 257,261 , 293 P 601 (1930).” I question the validity of a “law,” in the form of a punitive damages judgment, that is intended to warn the community against repeating a tort that has occurred in the context of a political demonstration. 1993Roshak v. Leathers, 277 Or 207, 211 , 560 P2d 275 (1977) says: “For many years it has been recognized in this state that ‘[t]he generally accepted doctrine [of punitive damages] is that such damages are awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others, or, according to some authorities, by way of example.’ Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or 257,261 , 293 P 601 (1930).” I question the validity of a “law,” in the form of a punitive damages judgment, that is intended to warn the community against repeating a tort that has occurred in the context of a political demonstration. | 3 | 1977–1993 |
Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
green
2 sentences1977Punitive damages, we have said, are "awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others," Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or. 257, 261 , 293 P. 601, 603 (1930), and they "can only be justified on the theory of determent", Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 248 Or. 420, 425 , 435 P.2d 306, 308 , 27 A.L.R.3d 1268 (1967). 1977Punitive damages, we have said, are "awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others," Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or. 257, 261 , 293 P. 601, 603 (1930), and they "can only be justified on the theory of determent", Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 248 Or. 420, 425 , 435 P.2d 306, 308 , 27 A.L.R.3d 1268 (1967). | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Sullivan v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.
green
2 sentences2006Ry. & N. Co., 12 Or. 392, 404 , 7 P. 508 (1885); see also Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or. 257, 261 , 293 P. 601 (1930) ("The generally accepted doctrine is that [punitive] damages are awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others, or, according to some authorities, by way of example."). 2006Ry. & N. Co., 12 Or. 392, 404 , 7 P. 508 (1885); see also Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or. 257, 261 , 293 P. 601 (1930) ("The generally accepted doctrine is that [punitive] damages are awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others, or, according to some authorities, by way of example."). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wheeler v. Green
green
2 sentences2002Turning to examine Article I, section 10, the court concluded that that constitutional provision did not require the availability of punitive damages because “ * * such damages are awarded by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to others, or according to some authorities, by way of example.’ ” Wheeler, 286 Or at 118 (quoting Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or 257, 261 , 293 P 601 (1930)). 2002In other words, punitive damages were “[not] necessary to compensate the plaintiff for injury to reputation.” Wheeler, 286 Or at 118 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.