2017 ORS 14.250¹
Disqualification of judge
  • transfer of cause
  • making up issues

No judge of a circuit court shall sit to hear or try any suit, action, matter or proceeding when it is established, as provided in ORS 14.250 (Disqualification of judge) to 14.270 (Time of making motion for change of judge in certain circumstances), that any party or attorney believes that such party or attorney cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before such judge. In such case the presiding judge for the judicial district shall forthwith transfer the cause, matter or proceeding to another judge of the court, or apply to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to send a judge to try it; or, if the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice will not be interfered with by such course, and the action or suit is of such a character that a change of venue thereof may be ordered, the presiding judge may send the case for trial to the most convenient court; except that the issues in such cause may, upon the written stipulation of the attorneys in the cause agreeing thereto, be made up in the district of the judge to whom the cause has been assigned. [1955 c.408 §1(1); 1981 c.215 §5; 1987 c.338 §1; 1995 c.781 §28]

Notes of Decisions

Upon filing of mo­tion for change, supported by proper affidavit, judge must either withdraw or request a “good faith hearing.” State ex rel Strain v. Foster, 272 Or 464, 537 P2d 547 (1975)

Mo­tion for change of judge, if in good faith, cannot be denied because of pre­vi­ous abuse. State ex rel Strain v. Foster, 272 Or 464, 537 P2d 547 (1975)

Affidavit need not state specific facts. State ex rel Strain v. Foster, 272 Or 464, 537 P2d 547 (1975)

Judge-disqualifica­tion pro­vi­sions in this sec­tion and ORS 14.260 (Affidavit and motion for change of judge) (1) do not impermissibly interfere with judiciary. State ex rel Ray Wells, Inc., v. Hargreaves, 306 Or 610, 761 P2d 1306 (1988)

Trial judge did not have authority to rule on substantive validity of mo­tion to disqualify. Phelps and Nelson, 122 Or App 410, 857 P2d 900 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Denial of mo­tion is finding of fact by trial court and is reviewed by appellate court under “any evidence” standard. Benson and Youngblutt, 141 Or App 458, 919 P2d 496 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Participa­tion in pro­ceed­ing by disqualified judge is procedural error that renders pro­ceed­ing voidable if timely objected to by defendant. State v. McDonnell, 343 Or 557, 176 P3d 1236 (2007)

Penalty phase on remand is part of same pro­ceed­ing as initial trial. State v. McDonnell, 343 Or 557, 176 P3d 1236 (2007)

Law Review Cita­tions

68 OLR 217 (1989); 73 OLR 785 (1994)

Notes of Decisions

These sec­tions deal with matters different from those governed by Article VII (Amended), sec­tion 8 of the state constitu­tion, and were not repealed by adop­tion of that pro­vi­sion. State ex rel Oliver v. Crookham, 302 Or 533, 731 P2d 1018 (1987)

An affidavit supporting mo­tion to recuse judge under these sec­tions must allege circumstances which would permit party or attorney reasonably to believe that party or attorney will not receive fair trial. State ex rel Oliver v. Crookham, 302 Or 533, 731 P2d 1018 (1987)

“Prejudice” as used in these sec­tions cannot be read so broadly as to subsume any views as to judge’s judicial competency. State ex rel Bowman v. Crookham, 302 Or 544, 731 P2d 1025 (1987)

Where affidavit in support of relator’s mo­tion for change of judge recited that judge is oriented towards pros­e­cu­­tion and that crim­i­nal defendants cannot get fair trial in his court, allega­tions were sufficient to require hearing to determine if relator had good faith belief that she could not obtain fair trial. State ex rel Bowman v. Crookham, 302 Or 544, 731 P2d 1025 (1987)

Where judge took af­firm­a­tive ac­tion to publicize dispute between judge and attorney, cumulative effect of dispute and judge’s reac­tion weighed in favor of recusal in unrelated case. In re Schenck, 318 Or 402, 870 P2d 185 (1994)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 14—Jurisdiction; Venue; Change of Judge, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors014.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 14, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano014.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.