show cause hearing in Oregon

2025The state argues that Matherly’s testimony at the show-cause hearing was sufficient to establish what Cite as 339 Or App 596 (2025) 603 probation conditions OYA had designated for youth, or at least takes the case out of the realm of plain error.

2025The state argues that Matherly’s testimony at the show-cause hearing was sufficient to establish what probation Cite as 339 Or App 596 (2025) 603 conditions OYA had designated for youth, or at least takes the case out of the realm of plain error.

2025Moreover, as defendant notes, although the show cause hearing was held over multiple days with a lengthy break between the first day and Cite as 344 Or App 725 (2025) 741 The pleadings and both parties’ statements to the trial court established that defendant’s right under the judg- ment to purchase product directly from Shore under the cir- cumstances was the overarching controversy that the parties asked the court to resolve.

2025Moreover, as defendant notes, although the show cause hearing was held over multiple days with a lengthy break between the first day and Cite as 344 Or App 725 (2025) 741 The pleadings and both parties’ statements to the trial court established that defendant’s right under the judg- ment to purchase product directly from Shore under the cir- cumstances was the overarching controversy that the parties asked the court to resolve.

2006In Gibbons and Gibbons, 153 Or App 377, 381 , 956 P2d 1069 (1998), we held that, under ORS 19.245(2), a judgment was not appealable where, in a dissolution proceeding, the husband appeared pro se at a show cause hearing but failed to file any pleading before the entry of an order of default.

2006In Gibbons and Gibbons, 153 Or.App. 377, 381 , 956 P.2d 1069 (1998), we held that, under ORS 19.245(2), a judgment was not appealable where, in a dissolution proceeding, the husband appeared pro se at a show cause hearing but failed to file any pleading before the entry of an order of default.

2006In Gibbons and Gibbons, 153 Or App 377, 381 , 956 P2d 1069 (1998), we held that, under ORS 19.245(2), a judgment was not appealable where, in a dissolution proceeding, the husband appeared pro se at a show cause hearing but failed to file any pleading before the entry of an order of default.

2006In Gibbons and Gibbons, 153 Or.App. 377, 381 , 956 P.2d 1069 (1998), we held that, under ORS 19.245(2), a judgment was not appealable where, in a dissolution proceeding, the husband appeared pro se at a show cause hearing but failed to file any pleading before the entry of an order of default.

1980The rule is firmly established that an agency’s subpoena power is limited only to the extent that 'the inquiry must be relevant to a lawful investigatory purpose and must be no broader than the needs of the particular investigation.’ Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. State Tax Com., 216 Or 605, 615 , 340 P2d 960 (1959); see Frank Lumber Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 287 Or 513 , 601 P2d 765 (1979).” At the show cause hearing the Audit Coordinator for the Multistate Tax Commission testified that several of the states participating in the audit had requested that appellant be audited for factors indicating the

1980The rule is firmly established that an agency’s subpoena power is limited only to the extent that 'the inquiry must be relevant to a lawful investigatory purpose and must be no broader than the needs of the particular investigation.’ Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. State Tax Com., 216 Or 605, 615 , 340 P2d 960 (1959); see Frank Lumber Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 287 Or 513 , 601 P2d 765 (1979).” At the show cause hearing the Audit Coordinator for the Multistate Tax Commission testified that several of the states participating in the audit had requested that appellant be audited for factors indicating the

2026After holding a show-cause hearing, a court must, under ORS 205.460, order a notice of lis pendens stricken and released if it determines that the notice is an invalid Cite as 350 Or App 259 (2026) 263 encumbrance.

2023The court Nonprecedential Memo Op: 324 Or App 633 (2023) 635 again awarded custody to mother and allowed father long distance parenting time.

2022In addition, the trial court’s repeated postponements on that motion hearing during the peak of COVID protocols aggravated the appear- ance of defendant’s offense. 1 In his motion to extend his diversion, defendant explained the reason that he had not completed all of the conditions of diversion: “Honestly, I relapsed * * *.” Nonprecedential Memo Op: 322 Or App 379 (2022) 381 Although the trial court’s decision was legally cor- rect and within the parameters of the court’s discretion, the path that the trial court took (and the path that this court must affirm) tends to undermine the purpose o

2018The trial court had the authority and responsibility to conduct the hearing "as an orderly and expeditious proceeding," Rogers , 330 Or. at 301 , 4 P.3d 1261 , and did not abuse its discretion when it limited appellant's statement in order to focus **820 on the charged crimes and appellant's own experiences with defendant.

2018The trial court had the authority and responsibility to conduct the hearing "as an orderly and expeditious proceeding," Rogers , 330 Or. at 301 , 4 P.3d 1261 , and did not abuse its discretion when it limited appellant's statement in order to focus **820 on the charged crimes and appellant's own experiences with defendant.

2014ORS 311.223(1) states, in pertinent part: “If the person or party notified as provided in ORS 311.219 does not appear or if the person or party appears and fails to show good and sufficient cause why the assessment shall not be made, the assessor shall proceed to correct the assessment or tax roll or rolls from which the property was omitted.” When a taxpayer does not appear at a show cause hearing, the assessor is required to “correct the assessment or tax roll.” (Id.) In contrast, ORS 306.115 states: “(1) * * * Among other acts or orders deemed necessary by the department in exercising its s

2013Kiser and Kiser, 176 Or App 627 , 632 n 1, 32 P3d 244 (2001).

2013Kiser and Kiser, 176 Or App 627 , 632 n 1, 32 P3d 244 (2001).

2009Id.

2009Id. at 286 .

2006Id. at 516 .

2005At a show cause hearing, the trial court rendered “an oral opinion” that the requested injunctive relief should be allowed and “announc[ed] that ‘that will be the Order of this Court.’ ” Id. at 576-77 .

2005The court then determined that the trial court’s oral remarks at the show cause hearing did not constitute an “order or a judgment.” Id. at 578 .

1998Although husband did appear pro se at the show cause hearing on July 22,1996, nothing in the trial court file establishes that husband filed any pleading, much less a responsive pleading, before entry of the order of default. 6 See generally ORCP 69 A. See also Colwell v. Chernabaeff, 258 Or 373, 375 , 482 P2d 157 (1971) (pre-ORCP decision, holding that the defendant’s pleading denominated “Notice,” which included a “motion to strike,” did not constitute “an ‘Answer’ or an appropriate appearance, which, under the circumstances, would prevent the taking of a default for want of an answer”).

1998Although husband did appear pro se at the show cause hearing on July 22,1996, nothing in the trial court file establishes that husband filed any pleading, much less a responsive pleading, before entry of the order of default. 6 See generally ORCP 69 A. See also Colwell v. Chernabaeff, 258 Or 373, 375 , 482 P2d 157 (1971) (pre-ORCP decision, holding that the defendant’s pleading denominated “Notice,” which included a “motion to strike,” did not constitute “an ‘Answer’ or an appropriate appearance, which, under the circumstances, would prevent the taking of a default for want of an answer”).

1998In failing to appear, without excuse, at the show cause hearing, defendant demonstrated that he did not want to have his trial scheduled within the regular course of the justice system but, like the defendant in McQueen , consented to have his case “languish in legal *288 limbo.” 153 Or App at 282 .

1998In failing to appear, without excuse, at the show cause hearing, defendant demonstrated that he did not want to have his trial scheduled within the regular course of the justice system but, like the defendant in McQueen , consented to have his case “languish in legal *288 limbo.” 153 Or App at 282 .

1997We stated that the usual practice to enforce an administrative subpoena is “for the petitioned court to hold a show-cause hearing on whether respondent should be held in contempt.” Id. at 410 n 7.

1997We stated that the usual practice to enforce an administrative subpoena is "for the petitioned court to hold a show-cause hearing on whether respondent should be held in contempt." Id. at 410 n. 7, 490 P.2d 1265 .

1992In Dept. of Rev. v. Rombough, 295 Or 774, 776 , 670 P2d 1031 (1983), the court held that the statutory requirement to inform an alleged contemnor of the right to counsel is mandatory, that it arises if the contemnor appears without counsel and that it must be given at the beginning of the show cause hearing.

1992In Dept. of Rev. v. Rombough, 295 Or 774, 776 , 670 P2d 1031 (1983), the court held that the statutory requirement to inform an alleged contemnor of the right to counsel is mandatory, that it arises if the contemnor appears without counsel and that it must be given at the beginning of the show cause hearing.

1990Husband filed a notice of appeal on July 14,1988. 1 Husband challenges the February 19 judgment on the grounds that it did not contain sufficient findings of fact, see Goldschmidt and Goldschmidt, 86 Or App 610 , 740 P2d 206 , rev den 304 Or 547 (1987), and that it failed to specify the statutory basis for the contempt.

1990Husband filed a notice of appeal on July 14,1988. 1 Husband challenges the February 19 judgment on the grounds that it did not contain sufficient findings of fact, see Goldschmidt and Goldschmidt, 86 Or App 610 , 740 P2d 206 , rev den 304 Or 547 (1987), and that it failed to specify the statutory basis for the contempt.

1988In State ex rel Lemon v. Lemon, 238 Or 446 , 395 P2d 161 (1964), the court held that, when a defendant deprived the plaintiff of the right to custody of their child in violation of the divorce decree, he had sufficiently prejudiced the plaintiffs rights to justify an enhanced penalty.

1988In State ex rel Lemon v. Lemon, 238 Or 446 , 395 P2d 161 (1964), the court held that, when a defendant deprived the plaintiff of the right to custody of their child in violation of the divorce decree, he had sufficiently prejudiced the plaintiffs rights to justify an enhanced penalty.

1984See ORS 33.030; State ex rel Spencer v. Howe, 281 Or 599 , 576 P2d 4 (1978); State v. Meyer, 31 Or App 775, 780 , 571 P2d 550 (1977); see also Taylor v. Hayes, 418 US 488, 498 , 41 L Ed 2d 897 , 94 S Ct 2697 (1974); see also Brice v. Danisch, 244 Or 505, 509 , 419 P2d 18 (1966) (reasonable steps to preserve one’s record on appeal are not contemptuous).

1984See ORS 33.030; State ex rel Spencer v. Howe, 281 Or 599 , 576 P2d 4 (1978); State v. Meyer, 31 Or App 775, 780 , 571 P2d 550 (1977); see also Taylor v. Hayes, 418 US 488, 498 , 41 L Ed 2d 897 , 94 S Ct 2697 (1974); see also Brice v. Danisch, 244 Or 505, 509 , 419 P2d 18 (1966) (reasonable steps to preserve one’s record on appeal are not contemptuous).

1984See ORS 33.030; State ex rel Spencer v. Howe, 281 Or 599 , 576 P2d 4 (1978); State v. Meyer, 31 Or App 775, 780 , 571 P2d 550 (1977); see also Taylor v. Hayes, 418 US 488, 498 , 41 L Ed 2d 897 , 94 S Ct 2697 (1974); see also Brice v. Danisch, 244 Or 505, 509 , 419 P2d 18 (1966) (reasonable steps to preserve one’s record on appeal are not contemptuous).

1984See ORS 33.030; State ex rel Spencer v. Howe, 281 Or 599 , 576 P2d 4 (1978); State v. Meyer, 31 Or App 775, 780 , 571 P2d 550 (1977); see also Taylor v. Hayes, 418 US 488, 498 , 41 L Ed 2d 897 , 94 S Ct 2697 (1974); see also Brice v. Danisch, 244 Or 505, 509 , 419 P2d 18 (1966) (reasonable steps to preserve one’s record on appeal are not contemptuous).

1980ORS 654.202. 3 The employer could only have challenged the validity of the warrant in an administrative proceeding if the search had resulted in a citation, Accident Prevention Division v. Hogan, 37 Or App 251 , 586 P2d 1132 (1978); 4 thus the trial court erred in allowing the attack on the warrant as part of the show cause hearing. 5 See also State ex rel Mix v. Newland, 277 Or 191, 200 , 560 P2d 255 (1977); State ex rel Hewson v. Hewson, 129 Or 612, 617-18 , 277 P 1012 (1929); State v. La Follette, 100 Or 1, 7-8 , 196 P 412 (1921); State ex rel v. Downing, 40 Or 309, 321-22 , 58 P 863 , 66 P

1980ORS 654.202. 3 The employer could only have challenged the validity of the warrant in an administrative proceeding if the search had resulted in a citation, Accident Prevention Division v. Hogan, 37 Or App 251 , 586 P2d 1132 (1978); 4 thus the trial court erred in allowing the attack on the warrant as part of the show cause hearing. 5 See also State ex rel Mix v. Newland, 277 Or 191, 200 , 560 P2d 255 (1977); State ex rel Hewson v. Hewson, 129 Or 612, 617-18 , 277 P 1012 (1929); State v. La Follette, 100 Or 1, 7-8 , 196 P 412 (1921); State ex rel v. Downing, 40 Or 309, 321-22 , 58 P 863 , 66 P

1980ORS 654.202. 3 The employer could only have challenged the validity of the warrant in an administrative proceeding if the search had resulted in a citation, Accident Prevention Division v. Hogan, 37 Or App 251 , 586 P2d 1132 (1978); 4 thus the trial court erred in allowing the attack on the warrant as part of the show cause hearing. 5 See also State ex rel Mix v. Newland, 277 Or 191, 200 , 560 P2d 255 (1977); State ex rel Hewson v. Hewson, 129 Or 612, 617-18 , 277 P 1012 (1929); State v. La Follette, 100 Or 1, 7-8 , 196 P 412 (1921); State ex rel v. Downing, 40 Or 309, 321-22 , 58 P 863 , 66 P

1980ORS 654.202. 3 The employer could only have challenged the validity of the warrant in an administrative proceeding if the search had resulted in a citation, Accident Prevention Division v. Hogan, 37 Or App 251 , 586 P2d 1132 (1978); 4 thus the trial court erred in allowing the attack on the warrant as part of the show cause hearing. 5 See also State ex rel Mix v. Newland, 277 Or 191, 200 , 560 P2d 255 (1977); State ex rel Hewson v. Hewson, 129 Or 612, 617-18 , 277 P 1012 (1929); State v. La Follette, 100 Or 1, 7-8 , 196 P 412 (1921); State ex rel v. Downing, 40 Or 309, 321-22 , 58 P 863 , 66 P

1980ORS 654.202. 3 The employer could only have challenged the validity of the warrant in an administrative proceeding if the search had resulted in a citation, Accident Prevention Division v. Hogan, 37 Or App 251 , 586 P2d 1132 (1978); 4 thus the trial court erred in allowing the attack on the warrant as part of the show cause hearing. 5 See also State ex rel Mix v. Newland, 277 Or 191, 200 , 560 P2d 255 (1977); State ex rel Hewson v. Hewson, 129 Or 612, 617-18 , 277 P 1012 (1929); State v. La Follette, 100 Or 1, 7-8 , 196 P 412 (1921); State ex rel v. Downing, 40 Or 309, 321-22 , 58 P 863 , 66 P