Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.555 (2026)
Subpoena defined
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
136.555 Subpoena defined. The process by which the attendance of a witness before a court or magistrate is required is a subpoena. [Formerly 139.010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: State v. Iseli, 458 P.3d 653 (Or. 2020).
State v. Iseli, 458 P.3d 653 (Or. 2020). “See generally ORS 136.555 (in criminal proceedings, “[t]he process by which the attendance of a witness before a court or magistrate is required is a subpoena”).”
State v. Bryan, 190 P.3d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “ORS 136.555 defines ‘subpoena’ as ‘[t]he process by which attendance of a witness before a court or magistrate is required.”
State v. Keenan, 771 P.2d 244 (Or. 1989). “The statute would, of course, yield to a party's constitutional right to the lawyer's testimony.”
State v. Cartwright, 20 P.3d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “” ORS 136.555. Both the state and a defendant may issue what traditionally has been termed a “subpoena duces tecum” by adding to the subpoena a directive that the witness bring with him or her “books, papers or documents.”
State v. Baker/jay, 221 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “Rather, such a remedy in effect ratifies the witness’s noncompliance by permitting him to continue not to appear and, in effect, punishes the party or parties who sought the witness’s testimony. Such a remedy also undermines the principle, long recognized by both the legislature…”
State v. Barnett, 598 P.2d 1301 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “See generally ORS 136.555 to 136.595. At one point in the transcript the following occurred: "THE DEFENDANT: (Mumbling.”
State v. Maney, 688 P.2d 63 (Or. 1984). “ORS 136.555 defines “subpena” as “[t]he process by which attendance of a witness before a court or magistrate is required.”
State v. McGee, 220 P.3d 50 (Or. 2009). “See ORS 136.555 (“The process by which the attendance of a witness before a court or magistrate is required is a subpoena.”
State v. Nefstad, 781 P.2d 358 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Although a court may compel a witness to testify at trial and at other authorized proceedings, Or Const, Art I, § 11; ORS 136.555 to ORS 136.567, the testimony that it may compel is limited by the stage of the trial.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.