Legal Opinion

State v. Murga

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 25, 2018No. A162498PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

*464Defendant appeals from an order imposing an incarceration sanction for punitive contempt under ORS 33.065. On appeal, defendant contends that because the punitive contempt proceeding originated from a motion and order to show cause, as opposed to an accusatory instrument as provided for in ORS 131.005(1), the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that a motion and order to show cause is a deficient pleading for purposes of initiation of a punitive contempt action. However, that deficiency does not create an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, we decline…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. WebbOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. TerryOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Clinical Research Institute v. Kemper Insurance CompaniesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  5. Hayes Oyster Co. v. DulcichCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Ceaser v. Dept. of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  2. Roberts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  3. State v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  4. Kleikamp v. Board of Commissioners of Yamhill CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. Bock v. Vigor Works LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API