needed to justify the amount of punitive damages the jury had awarded, which amounted to 33 times more than the plaintiff’s compensatory damages. In reaching that result, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the ratio should be calculated using the potential harm the plaintiff could have suffered, such as death or paralysis, rather than the knee injury the plaintiff actually suffered. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted where there is an adequate remedy in direct appeal. HotChalk, Inc. v. Lutheran Church, 372 Or 249 (2024); James, J. The plaintiff was represented by James T. McDermott. Rian Peck filed an amicus brief on behalf of OTLA. The plaintiff is a software and information technology company providing ongoing administrative support services to Concordia University as part of a 20-year contract. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract and fraud arising from their role in the closure of the university. The circuit court granted the defendants’ motion for a protective order to shield documents related to internal religious matters. The plaintiff petitioned for writ of mandamus. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the alternative writ of mandamus, but subsequently dismissed it as improvidently granted, reasoning that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and the questions raised in creditor’s mandamus petition were better resolved in trial. It is generally improper for a trial court to deny a for-cause challenge to a prospective juror based on juror “rehabilitation” by the court or a party. However, at least in criminal cases, the loss of a peremptory challenge is not reversible error because it does not prejudice a party in respect to any substantial right. State v. Villeda, 372 Or 108 (2024); Bushong, J. The defendant was represented by Brett Allin. Shenoa Payne filed the amicus brief for OTLA. The defendant was charged with multiple counts of physical and sexual violence offenses. During jury selection, one prospective juror told the trial court she did not think she could be fair to the defendant because she had several close friends who are victims of sexual violence. The defendant asked the court to remove that prospective juror for actual bias, but the court declined to do so, concluding her responses to follow-up questions from the prosecutor showed that she could be fair, despite her previous statements. The defendant later used a peremptory challenge to remove her from the jury panel. The jury ultimately tried the case convicted the defendant of two domestic violence offenses, although it acquitted him on charges of rape, sodomy and sexual abuse. The defendant appealed his convictions, contending the trial court had erred in denying his for-cause challenge to the prospective juror, effectively forcing him to use a peremptory challenge to remove her. The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant and reversed his convictions. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed. Between the Sheets continued from p. 53 “[W]hen a physician prescribes drugs to a patient in violation of the statutory standard of care and, as a result, the patient foreseeably injures third parties, the physician may be liable to the third parties in negligence.” 54 Trial Lawyer | Summer 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=