Terra Extraneus

The State of Oregon has a statute that requires that 60% of any punitive damages awarded to a plaintiff be paid into a victim’s compensation state fund. For a couple of reasons, it sounded like a “taking” of “property.” In the particular case in which it was enforced by the State of Oregon, the State of Oregon was also the defendant and wrongdoer.

This statute was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit arising in a federal trial court employment case, Enquist v Oregon Department of Agriculture, in which the wrongfully discharged employee was awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. The award of the jury became a judgment of the court.

The plaintiff then became a judgment creditor. Wouldn’t a judgment creditor be a property owner? In order to find the statute constitutional, the 9th Circuit had to and did determine that the plaintiff was not a “property owner” of the punitive damage award so that the 9th Circuit could conclude there was no unconstitutional “taking without just compensation” by the state. Clearly, the 9th Circuit had to turn nearly all of the law regarding judgments into Gumbies that could be twisted and turned into any desirable shape. This type of legal reasoning, getting to the desired end by torturing fundamental legal principles until they surrender, brings our courts into disrepute and makes all of our rights subject to political and social expediency. That this happens in employment cases with regularity is of no small concern, either.