2007 ORS 1.430¹
Supreme Court review
  • censure
  • order of suspension or removal

(1) If a hearing has been held under ORS 1.420 (Investigation), the Supreme Court shall review the record of the proceedings on the law and facts and may receive additional evidence. The Supreme Court may censure the judge or it may order the judge suspended or removed from office.

(2) If the commission has agreed to allow the judge to submit a consent to censure, suspension or removal, the Supreme Court shall review the stipulation of facts and the disciplinary action to which the judge has consented. If the Supreme Court approves the consent, the court shall censure the judge or order the judge suspended or removed from office pursuant to the terms of the consent. If the Supreme Court rejects the consent and stipulation in full, the court shall remand the matter to the commission for a hearing under ORS 1.420 (Investigation). The hearing shall be conducted as though the consent and stipulation had never been entered into, and the stipulations made by the judge may not be considered as evidence by the commission in the hearing. If the Supreme Court accepts the stipulation of facts but rejects the disciplinary action agreed to by the judge and the commission, the court may remand the matter to the commission for such further fact-finding as the court may direct on the issue of the appropriate discipline for the conduct, and may request that the matter be briefed and argued before the court. The Supreme Court may thereafter censure the judge, or enter an order suspending or removing the judge, as the court finds appropriate under the law and the facts.

(3) Upon an order for removal, the judge shall be removed from office and the salary of the judge shall cease and the office of the judge is vacant on the date of such order.

(4) Upon an order of suspension, the judge shall be suspended from office for the period specified in the order and the salary of the judge shall cease, if so ordered, from the date of the order until the end of the specified period. Suspension does not create a vacancy in the office of judge during the period of suspension. [1967 c.294 §7; 1971 c.511 §3; 1997 c.720 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Since there are no separate grounds for suspension, in recommending suspension the com­mis­sion must prove the accused was guilty of one of the specific grounds for removal as stated in Article VII (Amended), §8. In re Piper, 271 Or 726, 534 P2d 159 (1975)

The require­ments of Article VII (Amended), §1, cannot be modified by statute. In re Piper, 271 Or 726, 534 P2d 159 (1975)

Continued work by the accused upon four decedents' estates over a period of 10 years after becoming a circuit judge did not involve "moral turpitude." In re Piper, 271 Or 726, 534 P2d 159 (1975)

Where a judge was regularly employed as a part-time teacher for pay by a state-funded institu­tion of higher educa­tion, Article III Sec­tion 1 of the Oregon Constitu­tion was violated and would subject him to discip­line if he continued in that employ­ment. In the Matter of Sawyer, 286 Or 369, 594 P2d 805 (1979)

Proceedings under this sec­tion are not crim­i­nal and burden of proof, as in bar disciplinary cases, is proof by clear and convincing evidence. In re Jordan, 290 Or 303, 622 P2d 297 (1981)

Conduct of judge in giving false testimony constitutes miscon­duct which "bears a demonstrable rela­tionship to the effective performance of his judicial duties" as provided in Oregon Constitu­tion Art. VII (Am), sec. 8 (1)(b). In re Jordan, 290 Or 303, 622 P2d 297 (1981)

Chapter 1

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 436 (1974)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 1—Courts and Judicial Officers Generally, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­001.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 1, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­001ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
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.