PRIA Logo™
OregonHB 24612025 Regular SessionHouse

Relating to remote location testimony.

Sponsored By: Sponsor information unavailable

Became Law

Your PRIA Score

Score Hidden

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Sign up for a PRIA Policy Scan to see your personalized alignment score for this bill and every other piece of legislation we track. We analyze your financial profile against policy provisions to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to start

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

3 provisions identified: 0 benefits, 0 costs, 3 mixed.

Clearer rules for remote court testimony

The law lets Oregon courts take live remote testimony in civil and child welfare cases. Judges may allow it for good cause unless it would unfairly prejudice the other side. You must give written notice far enough before the hearing so the other side can respond; the judge decides what is enough. Judges also weigh whether reliable video tech is available, and may use phone only if video is not readily available. In jury trials, remote testimony is allowed only for good cause and with a compelling need. The party asking for remote testimony pays all related costs and cannot recover them as case costs. This does not apply to workers’ compensation or other administrative hearings. These rules apply to motions filed on or after the law’s effective date.

Remote testimony in family protection cases

In family protection order cases, you can ask to testify by video or phone. The court must consider safety or welfare risks from appearing in person when deciding good cause. Because these cases move fast, the judge may accept shorter notice if the other side can still respond. Telephone ex parte hearings do not need a motion or a good‑cause ruling. Shorter notice can give the other side less time to prepare.

Remote testimony in stalking order cases

In stalking protective order cases, you can ask to testify by video or phone. The court must consider whether in‑person testimony would threaten someone’s safety or welfare. Because these cases are expedited, the judge may accept shorter notice if the other side can still respond. Telephone ex parte hearings do not need a motion or a good‑cause ruling. Shorter notice can give the other side less time to prepare.

Sponsors & Cosponsors

Sponsors

There is no primary sponsor on record.

Cosponsors

There are no cosponsors for this bill.

Roll Call Votes

All Roll Calls

Yes: 97 • No: 0

Senate vote • 4/30/2025

Third reading. Carried by Broadman. Passed.

Yes: 28 • No: 0

Senate vote • 4/22/2025

Judiciary: Heard and Reported Out

Yes: 6 • No: 0

House vote • 3/18/2025

Third reading. Carried by Andersen. Passed.

Yes: 55 • No: 0

House vote • 3/11/2025

Judiciary: Heard and Reported Out

Yes: 8 • No: 0

Actions Timeline

  1. Chapter 23, (2025 Laws): Effective date January 1, 2026.

    5/20/2025House

  2. Governor signed.

    5/7/2025House

  3. President signed.

    5/1/2025Senate

  4. Speaker signed.

    5/1/2025House

  5. Third reading. Carried by Broadman. Passed.

    4/30/2025Senate

  6. Carried over to 04-30 by unanimous consent.

    4/29/2025Senate

  7. Carried over to 04-29 by unanimous consent.

    4/28/2025Senate

  8. Second reading.

    4/24/2025Senate

  9. Recommendation: Do pass.

    4/24/2025Senate

  10. Work Session held.

    4/22/2025Senate

  11. Public Hearing held.

    4/14/2025Senate

  12. Referred to Judiciary.

    3/20/2025Senate

  13. First reading. Referred to President's desk.

    3/20/2025Senate

  14. Third reading. Carried by Andersen. Passed.

    3/18/2025House

  15. Second reading.

    3/17/2025House

  16. Recommendation: Do pass.

    3/14/2025House

  17. Work Session held.

    3/11/2025House

  18. Public Hearing held.

    2/4/2025House

  19. Referred to Judiciary.

    1/17/2025House

  20. First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.

    1/13/2025House

Bill Text

  • Enrolled

    4/30/2025

    PDF

  • Introduced

    1/10/2025

    PDF

Related Bills

Back to State Legislation