Search a rule number or topic in circuit-court local rules and statewide UTCR. County filters select sources; they do not determine the court, venue or applicable law.
36 Oregon counties · 27 local rulebooks · 24 UTCR chapter PDFsMachine-extracted or machine-OCR source text, not independently validated legal requirements. Later amendments, case orders, exceptions, signatures, service, fees and deadlines require original-source review. Reserved and repealed chapters do not create requirements.
Reserved and repealed-only chapters are retained as such. Amendment and supplemental orders are searched separately because their extracted text may include deleted or superseded provisions. Some scans have machine OCR, visibly labeled and unreviewed. Remaining scans have original-source links only. Verify all text and amendment markings in the PDF.
Official local rules ↗ ·
Official current UTCR ↗
Search public rule numbers or topics. Leave out names, case numbers and private document text.
Stored source matches
CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules — physical PDF page 15
CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules · physical PDF page 15 · 2026
A-14 • Numbered lines can assist with precise citations to pleadings. • Overall, the benefits of removing numbered lines—readability, accessibility, and efficiency—appear to outweigh the downsides. Based on its discussion of the foregoing considerations, the committee voted by consensus to recommend approval. Following the fall 2025 meeting, the committee received several public comments, summarized below: • Many commenters described the requirement as outdated, burdensome, and difficult to format, especially across platforms. They noted that federal and many state courts operate effectively without line numbering, and that page and paragraph citations are sufficient. • Several commenters emphasized that line numbering interferes with OCR and PDF‑to‑Word conversion, slows drafting, creates formatting errors, and poses unnecessary barriers for attorneys, staff, and self‑represented litigants. Removing the requirement was viewed as improving readability, accessibility, and workflow effic…
Open publisher PDF at this page ↗ · Read complete stored excerpt
Machine-extracted PDF text, unreviewed.
Captured 2026-10-18T22:31:09.969140+00:00 · Chief Justice amendment order effective 2026-08-01; original amendment document, not consolidated rule text Only approved-change pages1-25 and out-of-cycle amendment pages94-101 are indexed. Disapproved proposals, deferred recommendations and administrative actions on pages26-93 and102-105 remain source context only. This packet is not consolidated rule text; dates differ by provision.
Publisher order or amendment document. Deleted/added wording and operative scope must be read in the original; do not treat every extracted sentence as an active rule.
Source provenance
machine_extracted_unreviewed
SHA-256 4d3584770d44af58f80c4ebf07da611b26a865195202c369dba2f465261fb0a5
Publisher URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules/UTCR/CJO_2026-021.pdf
25-006 Order Establishing Visitor Qualifications, Standard and Fees — physical PDF page 1
25-006 Order Establishing Visitor Qualifications, Standard and Fees · physical PDF page 1 ·
Presiding Judge Order # eon Oregon. .| _ ORDER ESTABLISHING VISITOR DOU-PJO-25-006 Douglas County | QUALIFICATIONS, STANDARDS AND [Rescinds Supersedes: CirouteCourt FEES All preniGun a ae related to ourt Visitors Douglas County Circuit Court (541) 957-2471 1036 SE Douglas Ave #JB201, Roseburg, OR 97470 dou.court@ojd.state.or.us This order supersedes General Order No. 16-04 and any other Presiding Judge Orders related to Court Visitors, Qualifications, Standards and Fees. Pursuant to ORS 125.165 and ORS 125.170, the presiding judge must establish the qualifications, standards and ORS 127.170 regarding fees for court visitors, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: A court visitor shall meet the qualifications pursuant to ORS 125.165 and have the appropriate education, training and experience to conduct interviews and make recommendations as required of court visitors under the law and have knowledge of the law relating to visitors, their duties and responsibilities. Any interested per…
Open publisher PDF at this page ↗ · Read complete stored excerpt
Machine OCR, unreviewed; recognition errors and lost amendment markings are possible. Verify the original PDF.
Captured 2026-10-18T22:32:44.067349+00:00 · Publisher library classifies this order CURRENT on retrieval; operative status, amendments, rescissions and case applicability have not been independently legally reviewed. Machine OCR generated 2026-10-18T22:59:06.138132+00:00 with tesseract v5.5.3.20260724; unreviewed recognition, layout and amendment-marking errors are possible. Source body effective date 2025-11-01; publisher metadata effective date 2025-11-01T07:00:00Z. Read the original date clause; no applicability conclusion is made. First-page header and publisher identify DOU-PJO-25-006, while both page footers say DOU-PJO-24-003. The unchanged source document contains this mismatch; OCR did not introduce it.
Publisher order or amendment document. Deleted/added wording and operative scope must be read in the original; do not treat every extracted sentence as an active rule.
Source provenance
machine_ocr_unreviewed
SHA-256 2fa3885b2442f65edbfe9ead8cb066591bbed62dc47e2b7d67e76a8cde2b6d50
Publisher URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules/Documents/DOU-PJO-25-006.pdf
CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules — physical PDF page 8
CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules · physical PDF page 8 · 2026
A-7 41. 26.160—PRIVILEGE AGAINST DISCLOSURE FOR COLLABORATIVE LAW COMMUNICATION; ADMISSIBILITY; DISCOVERY Adopt a new rule regarding the application of privilege in a collaborative law proceeding. See related items B.25–B.40 and B.42–B.44. 42. 26.170— WAIVER AND PRECLUSION OF PRIVILEGE Adopt a new rule regarding waiver and preclusion of waiver during a collaborative law proceeding. See related items B.25–B.41 and B.43–B.44. 43. 26.180—LIMITS OF PRIVILEGE Adopt a new rule regarding the limits of privilege for collaborative law communications. See related items B.25–B.42 and B.44. 44. 26.190—AUTHORITY OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE Adopt a new rule regarding authority of a tribunal in cases of noncompliance. See related items B.25–B.43. C. DEFERRED RECOMMENDATIONS The UTCR Committee did not issue a recommendation with regard to the following related proposals to amend UTCR chapter 12—Mediation. See section IV.C for a detailed explanation. 1. 12.010—APPLICABILITY Modify the rule lan…
Open publisher PDF at this page ↗ · Read complete stored excerpt
Machine-extracted PDF text, unreviewed.
Captured 2026-10-18T22:31:09.969140+00:00 · Chief Justice amendment order effective 2026-08-01; original amendment document, not consolidated rule text Only approved-change pages1-25 and out-of-cycle amendment pages94-101 are indexed. Disapproved proposals, deferred recommendations and administrative actions on pages26-93 and102-105 remain source context only. This packet is not consolidated rule text; dates differ by provision.
Publisher order or amendment document. Deleted/added wording and operative scope must be read in the original; do not treat every extracted sentence as an active rule.
Source provenance
machine_extracted_unreviewed
SHA-256 4d3584770d44af58f80c4ebf07da611b26a865195202c369dba2f465261fb0a5
Publisher URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules/UTCR/CJO_2026-021.pdf
CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules — physical PDF page 14
CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules · physical PDF page 14 · 2026
A-13 2. 2.010—FORM OF DOCUMENTS Amended to remove the requirement to prepare pleadings, motions, and requested instructions with numbered lines. ACTION TAKEN No motion was made to change the committee’s preliminary recommendation of approval. Accordingly, by committee convention, the October 24, 2025, preliminary recommendation became the committee’s final recommendation of approval. EXPLANATION This proposal, submitted by Judge Matthew A. Rowan, Circuit Court Judge, Jackson County Circuit Court, amends UTCR 2.010(4) to remove the requirement that all pleadings, motions, and requested instructions be prepared with numbered lines. Prior to the fall 2025 meeting, the proponent provided the following written testimony: • The proposed changes eliminate the need for pleading paper. The requirement of pleading paper is outdated and does not align with federal pleading or Oregon appellate court briefing format requirements. In a digital age, requiring numbered pages serves no purpose. In fact…
Open publisher PDF at this page ↗ · Read complete stored excerpt
Machine-extracted PDF text, unreviewed.
Captured 2026-10-18T22:31:09.969140+00:00 · Chief Justice amendment order effective 2026-08-01; original amendment document, not consolidated rule text Only approved-change pages1-25 and out-of-cycle amendment pages94-101 are indexed. Disapproved proposals, deferred recommendations and administrative actions on pages26-93 and102-105 remain source context only. This packet is not consolidated rule text; dates differ by provision.
Publisher order or amendment document. Deleted/added wording and operative scope must be read in the original; do not treat every extracted sentence as an active rule.
Source provenance
machine_extracted_unreviewed
SHA-256 4d3584770d44af58f80c4ebf07da611b26a865195202c369dba2f465261fb0a5
Publisher URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules/UTCR/CJO_2026-021.pdf