ORS 33.025¹
Nature of contempt power
  • entity defendants

(1) The power of a court to impose a remedial or punitive sanction for contempt of court is an inherent judicial power. ORS 33.015 (Definitions for ORS 33.015 to 33.155) to 33.155 (Applicability) establish procedures to govern the exercise of that power.

(2) An entity is liable for contempt if:

(a) The conduct constituting contempt is engaged in by an agent of the entity while acting within the scope of employment and on behalf of the entity;

(b) The conduct constituting contempt consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty of affirmative performance imposed on an entity by a court; or

(c) The conduct constituting contempt is engaged in, authorized, solicited, requested, commanded or knowingly tolerated by a high managerial agent of an entity, the board of directors of a corporation, a manager or member of a limited liability company or a partner in a partnership, acting within the scope of employment and on behalf of the entity.

(3) The high managerial agents of an entity, the board of directors of a corporation, the managers and members of a limited liability company and the partners in a partnership are subject to the contempt powers of a court for contempt by an entity if those persons engage in, authorize, solicit, request, command or knowingly tolerate the conduct constituting contempt.

(4) As used in this section:

(a) “Agent” means a person who is authorized to act on behalf of an entity.

(b) “Entity” has the meaning given that term in ORS 63.001 (Definitions).

(c) “High managerial agent” means an officer of an entity who exercises authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees, or any other agent in a position of comparable authority.

(d) “Manager” and “member” have the meaning given those terms in ORS 63.001 (Definitions).

(e) “Partnership” has the meaning given that term in ORS 67.005 (Definitions). [1991 c.724 §2; 2017 c.153 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Contempt pro­ceed­ing instituted under these sec­tions for husband’s failure to pay spousal support pursuant to dissolu­tion decree is separate pro­ceed­ing from dissolu­tion and trial court’s jurisdic­tion to hold husband in contempt was therefore not defeated by husband’s ap­peal from dissolu­tion decree. Oliver and Oliver, 81 Or App 115, 724 P2d 869 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Choice-of-evils de­fense could not exonerate defendants charged with contempt for violating injunc­tion arising from demonstra­tion to prevent abor­tions because de­fense is available only if defendants’ necessary con­duct is not inconsistent with other pro­vi­sions of law. Downtown Women’s Center v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 111 Or App 317, 826 P2d 637 (1992)

Contempt pro­ceed­ings are not subject to laws governing venue for crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings. Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 16 P3d 1185 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 33—Special Proceedings and Procedures, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors033.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 33, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano033.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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. Currency Information