Chapter 11, Level 1 Self-Quiz: GIII

Quiz Content

not completed
. Your job is to analyze the reasoning involved in the following passage. You can do this by illustrating the logic involved. You should look for uses of logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, negation, and conditional statements; sufficient and necessary conditions; and the analogical reasoning involved in the argument. Upon completion of your analysis, answer the question that follows.
Oberg was not allowed to introduce evidence regarding Honda's wealth until he “presented evidence sufficient to justify to the court a prima facie claim of punitive damages. During the course of trial, evidence of the defendant's ability to pay shall not be admitted unless and until the party entitled to recover establishes a prima facie right to recover [punitive damages].” This evidentiary rule is designed to lessen the risk “that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big businesses,” to take into account “[t]he total deterrent effect of other punishment imposed upon the defendant as a result of the misconduct.”
Assume the following key:
(A) Oberg was not allowed to introduce evidence regarding Honda's wealth until he "presented evidence sufficient to justify to the court a prima facie claim of punitive damages. (B) During the course of trial, evidence of the defendant's ability to pay shall not be admitted unless and until (C) the party entitled to recover establishes a prima facie right to recover [punitive damages]." (D) This evidentiary rule is designed to lessen the risk "that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big businesses," to take into account "[t]he total deterrent effect of other punishment imposed upon the defendant as a result of the misconduct."
Which of the following accurately reflects the structure of the reasoning?

not completed
.

Your job is to analyze the reasoning involved in the following passage. You can do this by illustrating the logic involved. You should look for uses of logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, negation, and conditional statements; sufficient and necessary conditions; and the analogical reasoning involved in the argument. Upon completion of your analysis, answer the question that follows.

The Court's opinion in Haslip went on to describe the checks Alabama places on the jury's discretion postverdict -- through excessiveness review by the trial court, and appellate review, which tests the award against specific substantive criteria. While postverdict review of that character is not available in Oregon, the seven factors against which Alabama's Supreme Court tests punitive awards strongly resemble the statutory criteria Oregon's juries are instructed to apply. And this Court has often acknowledged, and generally respected, the presumption that juries follow the instructions they are given. As the Supreme Court of Oregon observed, Haslip “determined only that the Alabama procedure, as a whole and in its net effect, did not violate the Due Process Clause.”

Assume the following key:

(A) The Court's opinion in Haslip went on to describe the checks Alabama places on the jury's discretion postverdict -- through excessiveness review by the trial court, and appellate review, which tests the award against specific substantive criteria. (B) Postverdict review of that character is not available in Oregon. (C) The seven factors against which Alabama's Supreme Court tests punitive awards strongly resemble the statutory criteria Oregon's juries are instructed to apply. (D) This Court has often acknowledged, and generally respected, the presumption that juries follow the instructions they are given. (E) As the Supreme Court of Oregon observed, Haslip "determined only that the Alabama procedure, as a whole and in its net effect, did not violate the Due Process Clause."

Which of the following accurately reflects the structure of the reasoning?

not completed
. Your job is to analyze the reasoning involved in the following passage. You can do this by illustrating the logic involved. You should look for uses of logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, negation, and conditional statements; sufficient and necessary conditions; and the analogical reasoning involved in the argument. Upon completion of your analysis, answer the question that follows.
In short, Oregon has enacted legal standards confining punitive damage awards in product liability cases. These state standards are judicially enforced by means of comparatively comprehensive preverdict procedures but markedly limited postverdict review, for Oregon has elected to make fact-finding, once supporting evidence is produced, the province of the jury. . . . The Court today invalidates this choice, largely because it concludes that English and early American courts generally provided judicial review of the size of punitive damage awards. The Court's account of the relevant history is not compelling.
Assume the following key:
(A) Oregon has enacted legal standards confining punitive damage awards in product liability cases. (B) These state standards are judicially enforced by means of comparatively comprehensive preverdict procedures but markedly limited postverdict review, (C) for Oregon has elected to make fact-finding, once supporting evidence is produced, the province of the jury. . . . (D) The Court today invalidates this choice. (E) it concludes that English and early American courts generally provided judicial review of the size of punitive damage awards. (F) The Court's account of the relevant history is not compelling.
Which of the following accurately reflects the structure of the reasoning?

not completed
. Your job is to analyze the reasoning involved in the following passage. You can do this by illustrating the logic involved. You should look for uses of logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, negation, and conditional statements; sufficient and necessary conditions; and the analogical reasoning involved in the argument. Upon completion of your analysis, answer the question that follows.
Furthermore, common law courts reviewed punitive damage verdicts extremely deferentially, if at all. See Day v. Woodworth: assessment of “exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages . . . has been always left to the discretion of the jury, as the degree of punishment to be thus inflicted must depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case”; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Humes: “[t]he discretion of the jury in such cases is not controlled by any very definite rules”; Barry v. Edmunds: in “actions for torts where no precise rule of law fixes the recoverable damages, it is the peculiar function of the jury to determine the amount by their verdict.” True, 19th century judges occasionally asserted that they had authority to overturn damage awards upon concluding, from the size of an award, that the jury's decision must have been based on “partiality” or “passion and prejudice.” But courts rarely exercised this authority.
Assume the following key:
(A) Common law courts reviewed punitive damage verdicts extremely deferentially, if at all. (B) See Day v. Woodworth: assessment of "exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages . . . has been always left to the discretion of the jury, as the degree of punishment to be thus inflicted must depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case"; (C) Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Humes: "[t]he discretion of the jury in such cases is not controlled by any very definite rules"; (D) Barry v. Edmunds: in "actions for torts where no precise rule of law fixes the recoverable damages, it is the peculiar function of the jury to determine the amount by their verdict." (E) True, 19th century judges occasionally asserted that they had authority to overturn damage awards upon concluding, from the size of an award, that the jury's decision must have been based on "partiality" or "passion and prejudice." (F) Courts rarely exercised this authority.
Which of the following accurately reflects the structure of the reasoning?

not completed
. Your job is to analyze the reasoning involved in the following passage. You can do this by illustrating the logic involved. You should look for uses of logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, negation, and conditional statements; sufficient and necessary conditions; and the analogical reasoning involved in the argument. Upon completion of your analysis, answer the question that follows.
Oregon's procedures adequately guide the jury charged with the responsibility to determine a plaintiff 's qualification for, and the amount of, punitive damages, and on that account do not deny defendants procedural due process; Oregon's Supreme Court correctly refused to rule that “an award of punitive damages, to comport with the requirements of the Due Process Clause, always must be subject to a form of postverdict or appellate review” for excessiveness; the verdict in this particular case, considered in light of this Court's decisions in Haslip and TXO, hardly appears “so ‘grossly excessive' as to violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause,” TXO. Accordingly, the Court's procedural directive to the state court is neither necessary nor proper. The Supreme Court of Oregon has not refused to enforce federal law, and I would affirm its judgment.
Assume the following key:
(A) Oregon's procedures adequately guide the jury charged with the responsibility to determine a plaintiff's qualification for, (B) the amount of, punitive damages, (C) Oregon's procedures do not deny defendants procedural due process; (D) Oregon's Supreme Court correctly refused to rule that "an award of punitive damages, to comport with the requirements of the Due Process Clause, always must be subject to a form of postverdict or appellate review" for excessiveness; E) the verdict in this particular case, considered in light of this Court's decisions in Haslip and TXO, hardly appears "so 'grossly excessive' as to violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause," TXO. (F) the Court's procedural directive to the state court is neither necessary nor proper. (G) The Supreme Court of Oregon has not refused to enforce federal law, and (H) I would affirm its judgment.
Which of the following accurately reflects the structure of the reasoning?

Back to top