2015 ORS 107.717¹
Appearance by telephone or two-way electronic communication device

(1) A party may file a motion under ORS 45.400 (Telephone testimony) requesting that the court allow the appearance of the party or a witness by telephone or by other two-way electronic communication device in a proceeding under ORS 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator).

(2) In exercising its discretion to allow written notice less than 30 days before the proceeding as required under ORS 45.400 (Telephone testimony) (2), the court shall consider the expedited nature of a proceeding under ORS 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator).

(3) In addition to the factors listed in ORS 45.400 (Telephone testimony) (7) that would support a finding of good cause, the court shall consider whether the safety or welfare of the party or witness would be threatened if testimony were required to be provided in person at a proceeding under ORS 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator).

(4) A motion or good cause determination under this section or ORS 45.400 (Telephone testimony) is not required for ex parte hearings held by telephone under ORS 107.718 (Restraining order). [2011 c.244 §2]

Note: 107.717 (Appearance by telephone or two-way electronic communication device) was added to and made a part of 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator) by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

Criminal contempt pro­ceed­ing for failure to obey restraining order issued pursuant to Family Abuse Preven­tion Act is not "crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­­tion" within meaning of Article I, sec­tion 11 of Oregon Constitu­tion. State ex rel Hathaway v. Hart, 70 Or App 541, 690 P2d 514 (1984), aff'd 300 Or 231, 708 P2d 1137 (1985); Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 16 P3d 1185 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Existence of restraining order prohibiting peti­tioner from contacting respondent does not provide grounds for refusing to issue restraining order prohibiting respondent from contacting peti­tioner. Rosiles-Flores v. Browning, 208 Or App 600, 145 P3d 328 (2006)

Judg­ment holding individual in contempt of "stay away" por­tion of restraining order does not constitute viola­tion of protec­tion order under federal Immigra­tion and Na­tionality Act. Szalai v. Holder, 572 F3d 975 (9th Cir. 2009)

Law Review Cita­tions

33 WLR 971 (1997); 85 OLR 325 (2006)

Chapter 107

Notes of Decisions

Trial court has authority to es­tab­lish liquidated sum as amount owed by spouse under settle­ment agree­ment. Horner and Horner, 119 Or App 112, 849 P2d 560 (1993)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Emergency or necessity as the only grounds for waiver of 90-day period, (1971) Vol 35, p 982

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 267-277 (1976); 27 WLR 51 (1991)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 107—Marital Dissolution, Annulment and Separation; Mediation and Conciliation Services; Family Abuse Prevention, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors107.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 107, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano107.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.