substantive due process challenge in Oregon

2011We further explained that, following the Lochner era, the Court’s substantive due process analysis in the context of economic regulation had been framed in terms of “rationality”: “Beginning with West Coast Hotel Co., and for the past three-quarters of a century, the Court’s substantive due process analysis in the area of economic legislation has been framed in terms of rationality rather than in terms of *76 ‘vested rights.’ Indeed, by the mid-1970s, it was ‘well established that legislative Acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life come to the Court with a presumption of const

2011We further explained that, following the Lochner era, the Court’s substantive due process analysis in the context of economic regulation had been framed in terms of “rationality”: “Beginning with West Coast Hotel Co., and for the past three-quarters of a century, the Court’s substantive due process analysis in the area of economic legislation has been framed in terms of rationality rather than in terms of *76 ‘vested rights.’ Indeed, by the mid-1970s, it was ‘well established that legislative Acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life come to the Court with a presumption of const

2011Further and significantly, in Powell and in Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F3d 1126 (9th Cir 2009), cert den,_US_, 130 S Ct 3320 (2010), we and the Ninth Circuit applied those principles under circumstances in which legislation retroactively extinguished pending claims, which is analogous to the effect of the retroactive repose period in HB 3166.

2011Further and significantly, in Powell and in Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F3d 1126 (9th Cir 2009), cert den,_US_, 130 S Ct 3320 (2010), we and the Ninth Circuit applied those principles under circumstances in which legislation retroactively extinguished pending claims, which is analogous to the effect of the retroactive repose period in HB 3166.

2010As we stated over 35 years ago in American Can Co. v. OLCC, 15 Or App 618, 644 , 517 P2d 691 (1973), a majority of the United States Supreme Court has not invalidated economic legislation on the basis of a substantive due process challenge — whether that challenge be “facial” or “as-applied” — since the Depression. 9 In the absence of any violation of federal law, the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees under 42 USC section 1988 for causing plaintiff to be subjected to the deprivation of rights secured by the constitution. 10 Plaintiff also cross-appeals on the ground that the court er

2010As we stated over 35 years ago in American Can Co. v. OLCC, 15 Or App 618, 644 , 517 P2d 691 (1973), a majority of the United States Supreme Court has not invalidated economic legislation on the basis of a substantive due process challenge — whether that challenge be “facial” or “as-applied” — since the Depression. 9 In the absence of any violation of federal law, the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees under 42 USC section 1988 for causing plaintiff to be subjected to the deprivation of rights secured by the constitution. 10 Plaintiff also cross-appeals on the ground that the court er

2010Guaranty Ass’n, 110 F3d 547 (8th Cir), cert den, 522 US 858 (1997) (similarly declining to use a “vested rights” approach when analyzing a substantive due process challenge to retroactive economic legislation). 4 *688 Evaluated under the more modem substantive due process framework — that is, whether the statute and its retroactive application have a “legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means” — Measure 49 plainly passes muster.

2010Guaranty Ass’n, 110 F3d 547 (8th Cir), cert den, 522 US 858 (1997) (similarly declining to use a “vested rights” approach when analyzing a substantive due process challenge to retroactive economic legislation). 4 *688 Evaluated under the more modem substantive due process framework — that is, whether the statute and its retroactive application have a “legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means” — Measure 49 plainly passes muster.

1999The plaintiffs brought an action alleging, inter alia, a substantive due process violation of their right to pursue the occupation of their choice. 24 F3d at 65 .

1999The Ninth Circuit noted that, in addition to showing that the governmental action lacked a rational basis, the plaintiffs must establish that they were deprived of the right to pursue their business, id., and that they failed to do so: “As an initial matter, we note that the fact that the City temporarily banned one particular type of amusement game does not in itself establish that the City unduly interfered with either the game operators’ or manufacturer’s ability to pursue their livelihood in the amusement game industry.” Id. (emphasis added).

1999In so holding, the court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Albright v. Oliver, 510 US 266, 273-74 , 114 S Ct 807 , 127 L Ed 2d 114 (1994), that, where a particular amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that amendment and not the more generalized notion of substantive due process must be the guide for analyzing the plaintiffs claims.

1999In so holding, the court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Albright v. Oliver, 510 US 266, 273-74 , 114 S Ct 807 , 127 L Ed 2d 114 (1994), that, where a particular amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that amendment and not the more generalized notion of substantive due process must be the guide for analyzing the plaintiffs claims.

1995Study Group, 438 US 59 , 98 S Ct 2620 , 57 L Ed 2d 595 (1978), the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a substantive due process challenge to a federal statute that imposed a limitation on liability for nuclear accidents resulting from the operation of federally licensed private nuclear power plants.

1995Study Group, 438 US 59 , 98 S Ct 2620 , 57 L Ed 2d 595 (1978), the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a substantive due process challenge to a federal statute that imposed a limitation on liability for nuclear accidents resulting from the operation of federally licensed private nuclear power plants.

1974Nebbia v. New York, 291 US 502 , 54 S Ct 505 , 78 L Ed 940 (1934).

1974Nebbia v. New York, 291 US 502 , 54 S Ct 505 , 78 L Ed 940 (1934).