[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6605522,"mediaKeyId","2986169-8a39a5bc5bee715aed60ba88e0791779","parentId",2986169,"title","Panel reviews bill to streamline appeals from justice and municipal courts","audioSeconds",1498,"startMs",26000,"endMs",1524000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2986169-8a39a5bc5bee715aed60ba88e0791779&start=26&end=1524","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2986169-8a39a5bc5bee715aed60ba88e0791779/thumbnail_26000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6605522/Oregon/Panel-reviews-bill-to-streamline-appeals-from-justice-and-municipal-courts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605522-c7382e1b9713eb427d9e571707394d25/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932689&Signature=XxDU~-EP0mxGQM0w22t~9PTSgY5pbIuDT0K4FlU5Y77vmeR2wUz1-0X8y0Lo136gXufRLM1bFVN7MbpwqzbIVpTuR8n9cse6rnSGmCPMNmkjp2y1OfhDUFwmmXVy2nBcgj4mOwQn4feSbbRpOSVEcY5Vvugtyk-WK8Mk9rRZrfILixw8urw11U4wmz2Joc8Fghj2895KJxCG3xb1PvyB0wT67qoFnhHkN3EyTglFM24MUatOOv7uFUQbztDz52JU~A3bjgcwlatukLONDs5ygJQ31HLvMTAUSfrUc6EmX0yBZvjUAuGICkLSYyu5NivjAf7ChBjykAo6Z5xtXVptFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-04-14T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Committee on Judiciary on April 14 heard testimony on House Bill 2460A, a package of statutory changes intended to reorganize and clarify the law governing appeals from justice and municipal courts. The bill, carried to committee by members of the Oregon Law Commission, would standardize notice and docketing rules, set uniform deadlines and fees processes for notices of appeal, and clarify the circuit court's scope of review and authority on such appeals.

Krista Obold Eshelman, supervising appellate attorney at Youth Rights and Justice and a commissioner on the Oregon Law Commission, told the committee the measure \u001ctakes provisions that were scattered across multiple statutes, reorganizes them, and focuses on making the appeals process more cohesive and user-friendly,\u001d with particular attention to litigants who appear pro se.\u001d Eshelman said the work group spent several years developing consensus among stakeholders and requested passage of the bill.

The bill would, among other changes, clarify jurisdictional limits (including a provision that jurisdiction over animal abuse offenses does not extend to felony cases), require municipal courts to rule on the constitutionality of a charter ordinance provision before addressing related merits claims, prohibit conditional guilty pleas in justice and municipal courts, and standardize record-keeping and docketing procedures and designate those records as public. It would also require local courts to provide contact information for the person to whom a party must send a notice of appeal and direct the State Court Administrator to create a model notice-of-appeal form. The measure sets an operative date of Jan. 1, 2026 for most provisions and would take effect 90 days after the governor signs it, with limited exceptions for statutory compilation directions identified in the bill.

Washington County Justice Court Judge Dan Cross, speaking for the Oregon Justice of the Peace Association, described practical effects the bill would have on small-claims and other local-court litigants. Cross said the bill increases the time a litigant has to perfect an appeal from 10 days to 30 days and explained the current practice requiring an appellant to file the circuit court filing fee and deposit the full judgment amount (up to $10,000 in justice court) with the justice court while the appeal proceeds. Cross said the 30-day deadline will \u001cbe a substantial increase in appellate rights for litigants in small-claims cases.\u001d

Justin Kidd, Justice of the Peace for Marion County, appearing for the Oregon Judges Association, said the bill \u001cincreases access to justice\u001d by making available a clearer, consolidated set of rules about what may be appealed from local courts and how to perfect an appeal. Kidd also noted that the measure was intended primarily to clarify appeals from courts that are not courts of record; courts of record would continue to follow the existing path to the Court of Appeals.

Committee members questioned whether expanded appeal avenues would increase workload for the circuit courts and whether circuit courts' capacity to process fee-waiver petitions could create an effective \u001cno cost\u001d route to circuit court review. Cross and Kidd responded that current appeal volumes from local courts are very low and that while the bill may increase appeals, fiscal-impact statements have projected only minimal effects. Cross and others noted that circuit court fee rules and fee waivers remain under circuit-court authority and that the bill does not change those existing provisions.

The committee heard discussion about the status of justice courts as courts of record. Kidd and other witnesses noted statutory limits on when a justice court may be a court of record and that making a local court a court of record typically requires the judge to be an attorney; that requirement was not proposed to change in this bill.

No committee vote on House Bill 2460A was recorded at the hearing. Supporters urged the committee to pass the bill out of the committee to give litigants clearer appellate procedures and uniform notice and docket rules across Oregon.

The committee closed the public hearing on House Bill 2460A and proceeded to the next agenda item.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Judiciary 04/14/2025 3:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Committee on Judiciary on April 14 heard testimony on House Bill 2460A, a package of statutory changes intended to reorganize and clarify the law governing appeals from justice and municipal courts.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17923,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6605512,"Bill would clarify what counts toward small-claims threshold for jury demand",0,1989000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2986169-8a39a5bc5bee715aed60ba88e0791779&start=1989&end=1989","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2986169-8a39a5bc5bee715aed60ba88e0791779/thumbnail_1989000.jpg","/articles/6605512/Oregon/Bill-would-clarify-what-counts-toward-small-claims-threshold-for-jury-demand","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605512-a73bdeebd0d1bf128e0d18f4914e1ec3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932689&Signature=O1p3aoeYz741NO35tJnEN4k9Mp9fy2ZTjBFpbOy-vd-EvZOYlKUIkn0TJVjSVoHdzHb718Hu2ZoH60KKlANkziqRr0cHR9fcbWmfCtC5o8qyyNblaUhIt4xf3oyaFZxB3JLQTqsH6OD-dvhLg9KvFm8lLHOlSLTyHy-yaquroS~LE2EbielZMQDmOU9EZ3LdriCi02VzZyqxDy~nUDEH8RqBIakENYE4jC6qtwpE-iMb1zS7dlhieKsMKyvLbJMIX50TF3GmSDkgpuoP6zIvw5TK8PrxBFaxMGzGd1XYjq1j26~82DuXUP~vsgpyOj2ZE6t3lzfrHJ8~tjl5TFItaw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Judiciary on April 14 received testimony on House Bill 2463, which would clarify how the \u001ctotal amount\u001d in a small-claims action is calculated for purposes of determining whether the claim exceeds $750 and therefore permits a defendant to demand a jury trial.

Emily Templeton, representing the Oregon State Bar and appearing as a trial attorney from Multnomah County, said the bill is part of the Bar's Law Improvement Program and would explicitly allow prejudgment or pre-award interest, fees, and costs to be counted in the total when the complaint identifies those amounts. Templeton said the change reflects existing judicial practice in Oregon courts and would make the statute clearer for defendants, many of whom proceed without counsel in small-claims court.

Chris Coghlan of Oregon Consumer Justice appeared in support and previewed a forthcoming amendment that would extend the defendant's answer period in small-claims cases from 14 to 30 days to align with circuit-court practice. Coghlan cited data showing low answer rates in debt-collection small-claims filings and framed the proposed extension as an access-to-justice measure; he said stakeholders he contacted were supportive or neutral and that a written amendment and testimony would follow.

Committee members sought technical clarifications about the statutory text. Witnesses confirmed the bill would only allow the amount to be counted toward the $750 threshold if the complaint expressly included a request for prejudgment interest or other costs with specified amounts, so defendants would not be left to guess.

The committee closed the public hearing on House Bill 2463 after testimony from the Oregon State Bar and consumer-advocacy representatives; no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.","House Bill 2463 would clarify that prejudgment and pre-award interest, fees and costs may be included in the total amount claimed when determining whether a small-claims case exceeds $750 and thus qualifies for a jury demand; proponents said the change codifies current practice and would improve clarity for self-represented",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6605517,"Committee considers removing 30-day presumption for remote testimony in civil cases",537,1525000,2062000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2986169-8a39a5bc5bee715aed60ba88e0791779&start=1525&end=2062","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2986169-8a39a5bc5bee715aed60ba88e0791779/thumbnail_1525000.jpg","/articles/6605517/Oregon/Committee-considers-removing-30-day-presumption-for-remote-testimony-in-civil-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605517-d801e94e6e3d052d2588020361efbb64/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932689&Signature=i9IgjGWondlE2KMtsdDhZ2cEU42loS0wz-LFxMLfR88fPqVhwg8sOH~JQ1WhEeWv8-eV7vNZ0FMROwdSbQ4v8VzCFq627D5gYnkjMJoCV27H-rES-QzXf58sG9yLZzsncIe5~NSS-YgQOkSAzcYK-2u6~7WG2wDRzwVE1NUKHDQKRVbveG6Qa4Svi839ggLMpiQu2XiDEkjCRZ5SMdsxMJYX~NY4D1TRWssoyM1F4rYL-QN3G1xrkoIi97z8BU8yawyJALbGYuWMMFFvULwadc8xDBOhy9LwK37D97D61jOf2s7BPUmUIggcDmdby0ONqUAbNBCadQTCbXxgD-cUtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Judiciary on April 14 took testimony on House Bill 2461, which would modify ORS 45.400's notice requirements for requesting remote testimony in civil cases. The measure would remove the statutory presumptive requirement that remote-testimony requests be made at least 30 days before the testimony date and instead require notice \u001csufficiently in advance\u001d to allow the opposing party to challenge the good-cause factors or to raise any prejudice.

Mark Peterson (appearing remotely), executive director of the Council on Court Procedures, told the committee the council proposed the change after the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that remote testimony can be an effective tool. Peterson said ORS 45.400 currently constrains rules changes the council made to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure and that removing the 30-day presumption would eliminate a predictable procedural attack that some attorneys might raise in close cases. He said the bill retains judicial control: a judge still must grant permission for remote testimony and can consider whether facilities and reliable technology are available for the court, counsel, parties, and witnesses.

Peterson described the council as a 23-member body that drafts rule changes for court procedure and said the measure passed the House previously with a 55-0 vote on the House floor.

Senators and witnesses discussed whether removing the 30-day presumption would undermine the court's ability to manage hearings if remote facilities or technology were unreliable. Peterson acknowledged the risk but said judges have tools to exclude or limit remote testimony when the record cannot be reliably created and that the proposed language adds an explicit consideration of whether reliable facilities or technology are reasonably available for all participants.

The committee closed the public hearing on House Bill 2461; testimony emphasized the bill's access-to-justice rationale and its intent to align statute with current remote-testimony practice.","House Bill 2461 would replace the statutory presumption that a party must request remote testimony 30 days before the testimony date with a more flexible standard tied to whether notice is \u001csufficiently in advance\u001d to allow the opposing party to respond; proponents said the change improves access to justice and aligns statutes with post-pandemic","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel reviews bill to streamline appeals from justice and municipal courts

Bill would clarify what counts toward small-claims threshold for jury demand

Committee considers removing 30-day presumption for remote testimony in civil cases