2017 ORS 33.105¹
Sanctions authorized

(1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court may impose one or more of the following remedial sanctions:

(a) Payment of a sum of money sufficient to compensate a party for loss, injury or costs suffered by the party as the result of a contempt of court.

(b) Confinement for so long as the contempt continues, or six months, whichever is the shorter period.

(c) An amount not to exceed $500 or one percent of the defendant’s annual gross income, whichever is greater, for each day the contempt of court continues. The sanction imposed under this paragraph may be imposed as a fine or to compensate a party for the effects of the continuing contempt.

(d) An order designed to insure compliance with a prior order of the court, including probation.

(e) Payment of all or part of any attorney fees incurred by a party as the result of a contempt of court.

(f) A sanction other than the sanctions specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection if the court determines that the sanction would be an effective remedy for the contempt.

(2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court may impose one or more of the following punitive sanctions for each separate contempt of court:

(a) A fine of not more than $500 or one percent of the defendant’s annual gross income, whichever is greater.

(b) Forfeiture of any proceeds or profits obtained through the contempt.

(c) Confinement for not more than six months.

(d) Probation or community service.

(3) In a summary proceeding under ORS 33.096 (Summary imposition of sanction), a court may impose one or more of the following sanctions for each separate contempt of court:

(a) A punitive fine of not more than $500;

(b) Confinement as a punitive sanction for not more than 30 days; or

(c) Probation or community service.

(4) The court may impose a punitive sanction for past conduct constituting contempt of court even though similar present conduct is a continuing contempt of court. [1991 c.724 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Legislative limita­tion on summary contempt sanc­tions does not impermissibly constrain summary ability of court to preserve and maintain order in judicial pro­ceed­ings. Frost v. Lotspeich, 175 Or App 163, 30 P3d 1185 (2001)

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 33, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano033.­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.