2015 ORS 33.045¹
Types of sanctions

(1) A court may impose either remedial or punitive sanctions for contempt.

(2) Confinement may be remedial or punitive. The sanction is:

(a) Remedial if it continues or accumulates until the defendant complies with the courts order or judgment.

(b) Punitive if it is for a definite period that will not be reduced even if the defendant complies with the courts order or judgment.

(3) A fine may be remedial or punitive. A fine is:

(a) Punitive if it is for a past contempt.

(b) Remedial if it is for continuing contempt and the fine accumulates until the defendant complies with the courts judgment or order or if the fine may be partially or entirely forgiven when the defendant complies with the courts judgment or order.

(4) Any sanction requiring payment of amounts to one of the parties to a proceeding is remedial.

(5) Any sanction imposed by a court for contempt is in addition to any civil remedy or criminal sanction that may be available as a result of the conduct constituting contempt. In any civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the conduct constituting contempt, the court shall take into consideration any contempt sanctions previously imposed for the same act. [1991 c.724 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Where party was in compliance with court order at time of hearing, but pattern of past viola­tions made future viola­tions likely, contempt was of continuing type. Kelley and Kelley, 128 Or App 123, 874 P2d 1364 (1994)

Where con­duct is both disobedience of court judg­ment and viola­tion of condi­tion of proba­tion, both contempt sanc­tion and proba­tion sanc­tion may be applied to con­duct. State v. Walton, 215 Or App 628, 170 P3d 1122 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Instru­mentality of state is subject to inherent authority of court to impose monetary sanc­tion for contempt, regardless of whether legislature has waived sovereign immunity of instru­mentality. Oregonians for Sound Economic Policy v. SAIF, 218 Or App 31, 178 P3d 286 (2008), modified 219 Or App 310, 182 P3d 895 (2008)

Continuing contempt includes only contempt continuing from date of contempt order forward. Oregonians for Sound Economic Policy v. SAIF, 218 Or App 31, 178 P3d 286 (2008), modified 219 Or App 310, 182 P3d 895 (2008)

Notes of Decisions

Contempt pro­ceed­ing instituted under these sec­tions for husbands failure to pay spousal support pursuant to dissolu­tion decree is separate pro­ceed­ing from dissolu­tion and trial courts jurisdic­tion to hold husband in contempt was therefore not defeated by husbands 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 Womens 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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 33, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano033.­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.