Oregon Education Ass'n v. Oregon Taxpayers United
253 Or. App. 288
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Consolidated appeal from contempt judgments for violating an ORICO injunction against OTU-PAC, OTU-EF, and Sizemore (and successor committees).
- Injunction paragraph 7 barred transfers or destruction of assets by OTU-PAC/OTU-EF and their successors; Sizemore controlled successor orgs.
- OTU2-PAC formed post-verdict; contempt proceedings alleged violations via asset transfers and initiative-related spending.
- Sizemore sought constitutional defenses (speech, due process, religion) and argued injunction overbroad; trial court held willfulness and preclusion arguments.
- AFT I–II affirmed/modified injunction; AFT III held injunction could apply to Sizemore; Contempt 2 and Contempt 3 proceeded with willfulness findings.
- Court concludes no jurisdictional defect, preclusion bars constitutional challenges, and evidence supports willful violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt proceeding challenges the injunction’s validity for lack of jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argue court had jurisdiction to issue injunction under ORS 166.720 | Defendants rely on dissent suggesting lack of statutory authority | No jurisdictional defect; valid under ORS 166.720(1) and inherent power. |
| Whether defendants are precluded from raising constitutional challenges | Sizemore and privies previously litigated constitutional claims | Preclusion should not bar new as-applied challenges | Precluded by claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and law of the case. |
| Whether the injunction as applied to Sizemore violates constitutional rights | Injunction prevents racketeering and protects initiative process | As-applied challenges deserve consideration; potentially violate speech rights | Constitutional challenges barred; law of the case and prior rulings foreclose. |
| Whether defendants’ violations were willful | Actions violated paragraph 7 despite ambiguity | Construing paragraph 7 narrowly could negate willfulness | Sufficient evidence supports willfulness; contempt affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polygon Northwest Co. v. NSP Development, Inc., 194 Or App 661 (2004) (willfulness standard and contempt boundaries in ORICO context)
- State v. Ryan, 350 Or 670 (2011) (jurisdictional contempt immunity and review of orders)
- D’Amico v. Ellinwood, 209 Or App 713 (2006) (definitions of issue and claim preclusion principles)
- State v. Mix, 277 Or 191 (1977) (limits on appellate challenge to underlying injunctions)
- Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich, 199 Or App 43 (2005) (law-of-the-case and binding effect in related proceedings)
- Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (2001) (law-of-the-case and alternative grounds for affirmance)