Oregon court rules & publisher orders

CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules — physical PDF page 17

CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules · physical PDF page 17 · 2026

A-16 
3. 5.100—SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDERS OR JUDGMENTS  
 
 Amended subsection (3) to require parties to specify the rule or statutory 
basis for claiming that a submitted document is exempt from the advance-
service requirement in UTCR 5.100(1). 
 
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 of the Jackson 
County Circuit Court, amends UTCR 5.100(3)(b) to require parties to 
identify the specific rule or statute supporting a claim that a submitted 
document is exempt from the advance‑service requirement under 5.100(1).  
It also includes a conforming update to UTCR 5.100(2)(b). 
 
For background, UTCR 5.100 requires advance service on opposing 
parties of proposed orders and judgments (subsection (1)); requires a 
certification of compliance with the advance-service requirement 
(subsection (2)(a)); and also requires that all proposed orders and 
judgments include a “certificate of readiness” that explains why the 
document being submitted is “ready” for either the judge’s signature or 
resolution of any outstanding objections (subsection (2)(b)).  Subsection 
(3) then sets out exceptions to the advance-service requirement, and 
subsection (4) sets out a single exception to the certificate of readiness 
requirement (presentation of the document in open court).  Subsection 
(5) pertains to punitive damages awards, and subsection (6) permits the 
rule’s certifications to be combined with other certifications. 
 
At the fall 2025 meeting, the proponent provided the following written 
testimony: 
• Parties frequently submit proposed orders and indicate that advance 
service is not required, correctly in some cases and incorrectly in 
others, reducing the value of the certificates. 
• When a party has not served a proposed order or judgment in advance, 
the court must determine the basis for the claimed exemption, which 
can be time consuming. 
• To address this, parties should be required to cite the specific rule or 
statute they rely on when asserting that advanced service is 
unnecessary. 
 
Following the fall meeting, no public comments were received.

Open publisher PDF at this page ↗

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.