exhaustion requirement (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

exhaustion requirement in Oregon

35 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2026 10 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (27)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Vanornumgreen
or · 2013 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See, e.g., Stewart v. Board of Parole, 312 Or App 32, 35 , 492 P3d 1283 (2021) (“Even if we were to conclude that the exhaustion requirement should Cite as 325 Or App 326 (2023) 345 be relaxed * * *, such that only preservation-of-error princi- ples were in play, neither of the first two assigned errors is ‘obvious and not reasonably in dispute’ so as to qualify as plain error.”); see generally State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (describing discretionary plain- error review).

2023See, e.g., Stewart v. Board of Parole, 312 Or App 32, 35 , 492 P3d 1283 (2021) (“Even if we were to conclude that the exhaustion requirement should Cite as 325 Or App 326 (2023) 345 be relaxed * * *, such that only preservation-of-error princi- ples were in play, neither of the first two assigned errors is ‘obvious and not reasonably in dispute’ so as to qualify as plain error.”); see generally State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (describing discretionary plain- error review).

33
Tuckenberry v. Board of Parolegreen
or · 2019 · cited in 5 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2019–2023
2 sentences

2023Relying on Tuckenberry v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 640, 642 , 451 P3d 227 (2019), he asks us to relax or set aside the exhaustion requirement.

2023Relying on Tuckenberry v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 640, 642 , 451 P3d 227 (2019), he asks us to relax or set aside the exhaustion requirement.

25
Bay River, Inc. v. Environmental Quality Commissiongreen
orctapp · 1976 · cited in 4 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1978–2022
2 sentences

2022Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 721-22 , 554 P2d 620 (1976) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 US 185 , 89 S Ct 1657 , 23 L Ed 2d 194 (1969)); see also Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County, 168 Or App 624, 630 , 4 P3d 748 , rev den, 331 Or 429 (2000) (recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)).1 1 We express no opinion on the propriety of the board’s apparent practice of informing license applicants that pursuin

2022Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 721-22 , 554 P2d 620 (1976) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 US 185 , 89 S Ct 1657 , 23 L Ed 2d 194 (1969)); see also Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County, 168 Or App 624, 630 , 4 P3d 748 , rev den, 331 Or 429 (2000) (recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)).1 1 We express no opinion on the propriety of the board’s apparent practice of informing license applicants that pursuin

24
Golden Rule Farms v. Water Resources Dept.green
orctapp · 2022 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

2026See Golden Rule Farms v. Water Resources Dept., 321 Or App 43, 48 , 515 P3d 908 (2022) (declining to relax or set aside exhaustion requirement when the “petitioner has offered no convincing reason as to why we should do that here”).

2026See Golden Rule Farms v. Water Resources Dept., 321 Or App 43, 48 , 515 P3d 908 (2022) (declining to relax or set aside exhaustion requirement when the “petitioner has offered no convincing reason as to why we should do that here”).

22
Dreyer v. Portland General Electric Co.green
or · 2006 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. at 193 , 935 P.2d 411 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, "[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262, 283, 287 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had "legal duty to abate the proceedings" pending agency's resolution of issues within its primary jurisdiction). [10] According to defendant's argument

2011Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. at 193 , 935 P.2d 411 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, "[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262, 283, 287 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had "legal duty to abate the proceedings" pending agency's resolution of issues within its primary jurisdiction). [10] According to defendant's argument

22
Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.green
or · 1978 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2004–2009
2 sentences

2009See 282 Or at 618 .

2004See Fifth Avenue Corp., 282 Or at 618 .

22
Nutbrown v. Munngreen
or · 1991 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2001–2004
2 sentences

2004See Jenkins, 311 Or at 239-40 (legislature added exhaustion requirement to ORS 144.335 to ensure that inmates would be required to present claims first to the board); Fish and *442 Wildlife Dept. v. LCDC, 37 Or App 607, 615 , 588 P2d 80 (1978), aff'd, 208 Or 203 , 603 P2d 1371 (1979) (goals of exhaustion doctrine include not prematurely interrupting agency review and giving agency, with its specialized expertise and the most information available, a full opportunity to determine factual and policy questions with which it is familiar).

2001If the law provides an adequate administrative remedy, then ORS 305.275(4) requires that it be exhausted before a court challenge may be prosecuted.” Id. at 342-43 (footnote omitted).

22
Application of Portland General Elec. Co.green
or · 1977 · cited in 5 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025
2 sentences

2025Elect., 277 Or 447, 456 , 561 P2d 154 DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 250167R 6 (1977)).

2025Elect., 277 Or 447, 456 , 561 P2d 154 DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 250167R 6 (1977)).

15
Miller v. City of Portlandgreen
or · 2014 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025
2 sentences

2025The exhaustion requirement “is intended to promote ‘orderly procedure and good administration.’ ” Miller v. City of Portland, 356 Or 402, 420 , 338 P3d 685 (2014) (quoting Marbet v. Portland Gen.

2025The exhaustion requirement “is intended to promote ‘orderly procedure and good administration.’ ” Miller v. City of Portland, 356 Or 402, 420 , 338 P3d 685 (2014) (quoting Marbet v. Portland Gen.

13
Mullenaux v. STATE, BY AND THROUGH OR., ETC.green
or · 1982 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2011–2019
2 sentences

2011That principle flows from the exhaustion requirement in administrative law, viz., "that as to matters within the jurisdiction of an administrative agency [j]udicial review is only available after the procedure for relief within the administrative body itself has been followed without success," Mullenaux v. Dept. of Revenue, 293 Or. 536, 539 , 651 P.2d 724 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted; brackets in original). [6] Therefore, if APA review could resolve the legality of a challenged agency action, then a party may not initiate a declaratory judgment action regarding the challenged agenc

2011That principle flows from the exhaustion requirement in administrative law, viz., "that as to matters within the jurisdiction of an administrative agency [j]udicial review is only available after the procedure for relief within the administrative body itself has been followed without success," Mullenaux v. Dept. of Revenue, 293 Or. 536, 539 , 651 P.2d 724 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted; brackets in original). [6] Therefore, if APA review could resolve the legality of a challenged agency action, then a party may not initiate a declaratory judgment action regarding the challenged agenc

13
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestrygreen
or · 1997 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. at 193 , 935 P.2d 411 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, "[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262, 283, 287 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had "legal duty to abate the proceedings" pending agency's resolution of issues within its primary jurisdiction). [10] According to defendant's argument

2011Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. at 193 , 935 P.2d 411 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, "[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262, 283, 287 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had "legal duty to abate the proceedings" pending agency's resolution of issues within its primary jurisdiction). [10] According to defendant's argument

12
Stewart v. Board of Parolegreen
orctapp · 2021 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See, e.g., Stewart v. Board of Parole, 312 Or App 32, 35 , 492 P3d 1283 (2021) (“Even if we were to conclude that the exhaustion requirement should Cite as 325 Or App 326 (2023) 345 be relaxed * * *, such that only preservation-of-error princi- ples were in play, neither of the first two assigned errors is ‘obvious and not reasonably in dispute’ so as to qualify as plain error.”); see generally State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (describing discretionary plain- error review).

2023See, e.g., Stewart v. Board of Parole, 312 Or App 32, 35 , 492 P3d 1283 (2021) (“Even if we were to conclude that the exhaustion requirement should Cite as 325 Or App 326 (2023) 345 be relaxed * * *, such that only preservation-of-error princi- ples were in play, neither of the first two assigned errors is ‘obvious and not reasonably in dispute’ so as to qualify as plain error.”); see generally State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (describing discretionary plain- error review).

11
JGB Enterprises, LLC v. OLCCgreen
orctapp · 2023 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See, e.g., Stewart v. Board of Parole, 312 Or App 32, 35 , 492 P3d 1283 (2021) (“Even if we were to conclude that the exhaustion requirement should Cite as 325 Or App 326 (2023) 345 be relaxed * * *, such that only preservation-of-error princi- ples were in play, neither of the first two assigned errors is ‘obvious and not reasonably in dispute’ so as to qualify as plain error.”); see generally State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (describing discretionary plain- error review).

11
Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson Countygreen
orctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 721-22 , 554 P2d 620 (1976) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 US 185 , 89 S Ct 1657 , 23 L Ed 2d 194 (1969)); see also Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County, 168 Or App 624, 630 , 4 P3d 748 , rev den, 331 Or 429 (2000) (recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)).1 1 We express no opinion on the propriety of the board’s apparent practice of informing license applicants that pursuin

2022Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 721-22 , 554 P2d 620 (1976) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 US 185 , 89 S Ct 1657 , 23 L Ed 2d 194 (1969)); see also Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County, 168 Or App 624, 630 , 4 P3d 748 , rev den, 331 Or 429 (2000) (recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)).1 1 We express no opinion on the propriety of the board’s apparent practice of informing license applicants that pursuin

11
Hyundai Semiconductor America v. City of Eugenegreen
or · 2001 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See Hyundai Semiconductor America v. City of Eugene, 332 Or 293 , 300 n 8, 27 P3d 124 (2001) (“The 1995 Legislature amended ORS 305.275 and eliminated the exhaustion requirement.”).

2020See Hyundai Semiconductor America v. City of Eugene, 332 Or 293 , 300 n 8, 27 P3d 124 (2001) (“The 1995 Legislature amended ORS 305.275 and eliminated the exhaustion requirement.”).

11
Welch v. Washington Countygreen
or · 1992 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014See Welch v. Washington County, 314 Or 707, 716 , 842 P2d 793 (1992) (noting in tax context that taxpayers have been relieved from obligation to exhaust administrative remedies “most often in situations where the taxpayer has been misled regarding a filing or appeal requirement,” and citing cases); Pierce, 2 Administrative Law Treatise § 15.2 at 1220 (common-law exhaustion requirement does not apply if “considerations of individual justice, efficiency, or wise judicial administration support the need for judicial review in the absence of exhaustion”).

2014See Welch v. Washington County, 314 Or 707, 716 , 842 P2d 793 (1992) (noting in tax context that taxpayers have been relieved from obligation to exhaust administrative remedies “most often in situations where the taxpayer has been misled regarding a filing or appeal requirement,” and citing cases); Pierce, 2 Administrative Law Treatise § 15.2 at 1220 (common-law exhaustion requirement does not apply if “considerations of individual justice, efficiency, or wise judicial administration support the need for judicial review in the absence of exhaustion”).

11
Taylor v. Board of Parolegreen
orctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
11
Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4Jgreen
or · 1986 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
11
Yousef v. Renogreen
ca10 · 2001 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
11
Gonzales-Liranza v. Naranjogreen
ca10 · 2003 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
11
Jenkins v. Board of Parolegreen
or · 1992 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
11
United States v. Dickinsongreen
scotus · 1947 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
11
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diegogreen
scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
11
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angelesgreen
scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
11
Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bankgreen
scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
11
Kewin v. Board of Education of the Melvindale-Northern Allen Park Public Schoolsgreen
michctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
11
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.green
scotus · 1938 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Fish & Wildlife Department v. Land Conservation & Development Commissiongreen
or · 1979 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1980–2004
2 sentences

2004See Jenkins, 311 Or at 239-40 (legislature added exhaustion requirement to ORS 144.335 to ensure that inmates would be required to present claims first to the board); Fish and *442 Wildlife Dept. v. LCDC, 37 Or App 607, 615 , 588 P2d 80 (1978), aff'd, 208 Or 203 , 603 P2d 1371 (1979) (goals of exhaustion doctrine include not prematurely interrupting agency review and giving agency, with its specialized expertise and the most information available, a full opportunity to determine factual and policy questions with which it is familiar).

1980But see Fish and Wildlife Department v. LCDC, 288 Or 203 , 603 P2d 1391 (1979).

12

Also cited on this issue (32)

CaseCitedYears
Ayres v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision green
orctapp · 2004
2 sentences

2013The “doctrine of exhaustion * * * is somewhat ‘flexible’ and is judicially employed to further ‘orderly procedure and good administration.’” Ayres v. Board of Parole, 194 Or App 429, 436 , 97 P3d 1 (2004) (quoting Marbet v. Portland Gen.

2013The “doctrine of exhaustion * * * is somewhat ‘flexible’ and is judicially employed to further ‘orderly procedure and good administration.’” Ayres v. Board of Parole, 194 Or App 429, 436 , 97 P3d 1 (2004) (quoting Marbet v. Portland Gen.

52005–2013
Lyke v. Lane County green
orctapp · 1984
2 sentences

2011Lyke v. Lane County, 70 Or.App. 82, 85 , 688 P.2d 411 (1984).

2011Lyke v. Lane County, 70 Or.App. 82, 85 , 688 P.2d 411 (1984).

31986–2011
State v. Civil green
orctapp · 2017
2 sentences

2023For relief from registration or reclassification under ORS 163A.125, the Board shall consider the registrant’s time sexual offense-free in the community after conviction in determining whether to grant a petition for relief from the registration obligation or reclassification.” OAR 255-085-0020(6) (Nov 25, 2020). 1 See State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 416 , 388 P3d 1185 (2017) (articulating a rigorous standard for overruling our own case law when it is “plainly wrong”). 56 Lewis-Taylor v. Board of Parole If we were to relax or set aside the exhaustion requirement and consider petitioner’s argum

2023For relief from registration or reclassification under ORS 163A.125, the Board shall consider the registrant’s time sexual offense-free in the community after conviction in determining whether to grant a petition for relief from the registration obligation or reclassification.” OAR 255-085-0020(6) (Nov 25, 2020). 1 See State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 416 , 388 P3d 1185 (2017) (articulating a rigorous standard for overruling our own case law when it is “plainly wrong”). 56 Lewis-Taylor v. Board of Parole If we were to relax or set aside the exhaustion requirement and consider petitioner’s argum

22023–2023
McKart v. United States green
scotus · 1969
2 sentences

2022Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 721-22 , 554 P2d 620 (1976) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 US 185 , 89 S Ct 1657 , 23 L Ed 2d 194 (1969)); see also Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County, 168 Or App 624, 630 , 4 P3d 748 , rev den, 331 Or 429 (2000) (recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)).1 1 We express no opinion on the propriety of the board’s apparent practice of informing license applicants that pursuin

2022Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 721-22 , 554 P2d 620 (1976) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 US 185 , 89 S Ct 1657 , 23 L Ed 2d 194 (1969)); see also Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County, 168 Or App 624, 630 , 4 P3d 748 , rev den, 331 Or 429 (2000) (recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)).1 1 We express no opinion on the propriety of the board’s apparent practice of informing license applicants that pursuin

21978–2022
Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply green
or · 2004
2 sentences

2016Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 336 Or 349, 368 , 84 P3d 119 (2004).

2016Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 336 Or 349, 368 , 84 P3d 119 (2004).

22006–2016
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State green
or · 2001
2 sentences

2016“The doctrine of exhaustion [of remedies] applies when a party, without conforming to the applicable statutes or rules, seeks judicial determination of a matter that was or should have been submitted to the administrative agency for decision.” Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 661 , 20 P3d 180 (2001).

2006"The doctrine of exhaustion [of remedies] applies when a party, without conforming to the applicable statutes or rules, seeks judicial determination of a matter that was or should have been submitted to the administrative agency for decision." Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or. 634, 661 , 20 P.3d 180 (2001).

22006–2016
State v. Kruchek green
or · 2001
2 sentences

2016“The doctrine of exhaustion [of remedies] applies when a party, without conforming to the applicable statutes or rules, seeks judicial determination of a matter that was or should have been submitted to the administrative agency for decision.” Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 661 , 20 P3d 180 (2001).

2006"The doctrine of exhaustion [of remedies] applies when a party, without conforming to the applicable statutes or rules, seeks judicial determination of a matter that was or should have been submitted to the administrative agency for decision." Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or. 634, 661 , 20 P.3d 180 (2001).

22006–2016
McCarthy v. Madigan red
scotus · 1992
2 sentences

2011In McCarthy , the Court concluded that the exhaustion principle did not prevent the petitioner from bringing his claim seeking compensatory relief for a violation of his rights as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because, in part, "the administrative `remedy' does not authorize an award of monetary damages—the only relief requested by [the petitioner] in this action." Id. at 152 , 112 S.Ct. 1081 . [9] Further, we note again that part of PERB's reasoning for dismissing the contested case proceeding was that plaintiff could not recover in that proceeding the c

2011In McCarthy , the Court concluded that the exhaustion principle did not prevent the petitioner from bringing his claim seeking compensatory relief for a violation of his rights as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because, in part, "the administrative `remedy' does not authorize an award of monetary damages—the only relief requested by [the petitioner] in this action." Id. at 152 , 112 S.Ct. 1081 . [9] Further, we note again that part of PERB's reasoning for dismissing the contested case proceeding was that plaintiff could not recover in that proceeding the c

22011–2011
Eppler v. Board of Tax Service Examiners neutral
orctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2011Eppler v. Board of Tax Service Examiners, 189 Or.App. 216, 219 , 75 P.3d 900 (2003); see also Bay River, 26 Or.App. at 720 , 554 P.2d 620 ("A party cannot ignore the judicial review provisions of the APA in favor of a general equitable or declaratory remedy.").

2011Eppler v. Board of Tax Service Examiners, 189 Or.App. 216, 219 , 75 P.3d 900 (2003); see also Bay River, 26 Or.App. at 720 , 554 P.2d 620 ("A party cannot ignore the judicial review provisions of the APA in favor of a general equitable or declaratory remedy.").

22011–2011
Muller v. State neutral
orctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2011Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. at 193 , 935 P.2d 411 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, "[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262, 283, 287 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had "legal duty to abate the proceedings" pending agency's resolution of issues within its primary jurisdiction). [10] According to defendant's argument

2011Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. at 193 , 935 P.2d 411 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, "[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262, 283, 287 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had "legal duty to abate the proceedings" pending agency's resolution of issues within its primary jurisdiction). [10] According to defendant's argument

22011–2011
Lake County v. Teamsters Local Union 223 green
orctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2025To exhaust one’s remedies “* * * requires that the issues of the dispute be submitted to the administrative agency for consideration of the merits of the dispute.” See Lake County v. Teamsters Local Union #223, 208 Or App 271, 277 , 145 P3d 187 (2006) (discussing the doctrine of exhaustion, generally).

2025To exhaust one’s remedies “* * * requires that the issues of the dispute be submitted to the administrative agency for consideration of the merits of the dispute.” See Lake County v. Teamsters Local Union #223, 208 Or App 271, 277 , 145 P3d 187 (2006) (discussing the doctrine of exhaustion, generally).

12025–2025
Wang v. Board of Massage Therapists neutral
orctapp · 2022
1 sentence

2022Cite as 322 Or App 491 (2022) 495 Thus, we agree with the trial court that plaintiff’s remedy, if any, was through the administrative process rather than through a declaratory judgment action.

12022–2022
Zollinger v. Warner green
or · 1979
2 sentences

2014The exhaustion doctrine applies “where one seeks prematurely to obtain judicial review of or judicial intervention into the action of an agency * * * without waiting to see whether the agency will in fact take the desired action.” Zollinger v. Warner, 286 Or 19, 25 , 593 P2d 1107 (1979).

2014The exhaustion doctrine applies “where one seeks prematurely to obtain judicial review of or judicial intervention into the action of an agency * * * without waiting to see whether the agency will in fact take the desired action.” Zollinger v. Warner, 286 Or 19, 25 , 593 P2d 1107 (1979).

12014–2014
Olsen v. Deschutes County green
orctapp · 2006
12013–2013
Department of Revenue v. Welch green
or · 1982
12011–2011
Wallace v. STATE EX REL. PERB green
orctapp · 2011
12011–2011
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City red
scotus · 1985
12010–2010
Ragsdale v. Department of Revenue green
or · 1992
12009–2009
Fish & Wildlife Department v. Land Conservation & Development Commission green
orctapp · 1978
12004–2004
Carson Lynn Brown v. Raymond G. Toombs, Warden Peter W. Vidor, Named as Pete Vidor on Complaint, Deputy Warden Ray Palmer, Adw of Custody T. Luna green
ca6 · 1998
12004–2004
George Wyatt v. Michael Leonard Geri Mangas Mario Marroquin Lt. Pierce Burton L. Cronk B.G. Hummel C/o Walters, Sgt. Hefner green
ca6 · 1999
12004–2004
Demetrius Knuckles El Errick E. Payton-Bey Michael Vaughn v. Raymond G. Toombs, Warden green
ca6 · 2000
12004–2004
Greg Curry v. David Scott green
ca6 · 2001
12004–2004
Alexander L. Baxter v. Jim Rose, James Davis, Nicky Jordan, Scotty Smith, Bobby Pevahouse, Bert Staggs, and Jim Bevis green
ca6 · 2002
12004–2004
Williams v. Bankers National Insurance green
ariz · 1956
11983–1983
Andrews v. Warren Lumber & Paint Co. green
nm · 1949
11983–1983
Franden v. Jonasson green
idaho · 1973
11983–1983
United States v. Superior Court green
cal · 1941
11983–1983
Miller v. SCHRUNK green
or · 1962
11978–1978
Parks v. BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS OF TILLAMOOK CTY. green
orctapp · 1972
11978–1978
Willamette Valley Lumber Co. v. State Tax Commission neutral
or · 1961
11978–1978
Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. green
scotus · 1969
11974–1974

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482 (14) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.335 (9) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.275 (7) USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (7) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.484 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163A.100 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.010 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.105 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.310 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.490 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.650 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.445 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 418 (1897–2026) CT 286 (1979–2026) TX 203 (1973–2026) IL 189 (1963–2026) NY 151 (1974–2026) IN 98 (1979–2026) PA 93 (1954–2026) WA 71 (1984–2026) IA 70 (1972–2026) MD 61 (1980–2023) MA 52 (1976–2026) NJ 51 (1962–2024) WI 44 (1974–2026) FL 43 (1976–2025) MI 38 (1968–2026) AZ 37 (1963–2023) OH 36 (1975–2025) GA 36 (1980–2026) CO 36 (1974–2026) KS 36 (1974–2026) OR 35 (1974–2026) ID 29 (1978–2026) NV 28 (1992–2025) DC 27 (1985–2017) NM 27 (1966–2025) RI 27 (1966–2026) AK 27 (1981–2025) UT 24 (1992–2024) MT 24 (1981–2025) MO 23 (1957–2021) VT 21 (1986–2025) HI 20 (1987–2025) LA 19 (1989–2024) NC 18 (1991–2022) OK 18 (1977–2018) WY 17 (1982–2025) AL 16 (1980–2012) TN 16 (1995–2025) MN 15 (1981–2012) ME 15 (1984–2024) MS 14 (1963–2026) NE 14 (1998–2019) SD 13 (1975–2018) SC 12 (1990–2024) AR 11 (1996–2020) VA 11 (1982–2026) WV 9 (1989–2023) NH 6 (1989–2014) KY 5 (1981–2026) ND 5 (1997–2024) VI 2 (1988–1995) DE 2 (1975–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check