Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Thompson

State v. Thompson

674 P.2d 92
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided January 11, 1984·No. 30217 CA A29258·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

674 P.2d 92 (1984)
66 Or.App. 496

STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Harold W. THOMPSON, Appellant.

No. 30217; CA A29258.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted December 20, 1983.
Decided January 11, 1984.

Robert P. Van Natta, St. Helens, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Van Natta & Petersen, St. Helens.

Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.

Before GILLETTE, P.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN and YOUNG, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court's order finding defendant to be in contempt is inadequate in that it does not identify the statutory basis upon which it is entered. Accordingly, we cannot determine if it was proper.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.[1]

NOTES

[1] On remand, the trial court may wish to consider, inter alia, the impact such decisions as SER Spencer v. Howe, 281 Or. 599, 576 P.2d 4 (1978), have on the procedures that must be followed (and the punishment that can be imposed) with respect to conduct like that of defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Thompson, 674 P.2d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

674 P.2d 92 (State v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Adult & Family Services Division v. Burkhart
723 P.2d 375 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1986)
In re the Marriage of Yowman
717 P.2d 1243 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1986)
State v. Baron
675 P.2d 1089 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1984)