State v. Murga
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. WebbOregon Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. TerryOregon Supreme Court · 2001
- Clinical Research Institute v. Kemper Insurance CompaniesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- Hayes Oyster Co. v. DulcichCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ceaser v. Dept. of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
- Roberts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
- State v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- Kleikamp v. Board of Commissioners of Yamhill CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
- Bock v. Vigor Works LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.