Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 3 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2005Our review of the validity of an administrative rule under ORS 183.400 is limited to determining, as a matter of law, whether the rule violates a provision of the constitution, exceeds the statutory authority delegated to the agency promulgating the rule, or was “adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures.” ORS 183.400(4); Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 565 , 687 P2d 785 (1984). 2005Our review of the validity of an administrative rule under ORS 183.400 is limited to determining, as a matter of law, whether the rule violates a provision of the constitution, exceeds the statutory authority delegated to the agency promulgating the rule, or was “adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures.” ORS 183.400(4); Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 565 , 687 P2d 785 (1984). | 2 | 4 |
Alto v. State Fire Marshalgreen2 sentences2023See generally Alto v. State Fire Marshal, 319 Or 382, 391-92 , 876 P2d 774 (1994) (party seek- ing declaration that a rule was invalid was required to bring rule challenge in Court of Appeals under ORS 183.400(1) rather than in circuit court); ORS 14.165(1)(a) (if an action against a public body is filed in circuit court and the cir- cuit court does not have authority to decide the case, the circuit court shall transfer the case to the court authorized to decide the case). 2023See generally Alto v. State Fire Marshal, 319 Or 382, 391-92 , 876 P2d 774 (1994) (party seek- ing declaration that a rule was invalid was required to bring rule challenge in Court of Appeals under ORS 183.400(1) rather than in circuit court); ORS 14.165(1)(a) (if an action against a public body is filed in circuit court and the cir- cuit court does not have authority to decide the case, the circuit court shall transfer the case to the court authorized to decide the case). | 1 | 1 |
Burke v. Children's Services Divisiongreen2 sentences1985See Burke v. Childrens Services Division, 288 Or 533 , 607 P2d 141 (1980). 1985See Burke v. Childrens Services Division, 288 Or 533 , 607 P2d 141 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pulito v. Board of Nursing
green
2 sentences2024When, as here, a challenge to the validity of an administrative rule is based on a claim that the rule violates a statute, “our standard for judicial review is whether the rule ‘exceeds the statutory authority of the agency.’ ” Pulito, 366 Or at 618 (quoting ORS 183.400(4)(b)). “ ‘Authority,’ as used in ORS 183.400(4)(b), does not refer to only the agency’s overall ‘jurisdiction.’ ” Pulito, 366 Or at 618 . 2024When, as here, a challenge to the validity of an administrative rule is based on a claim that the rule violates a statute, “our standard for judicial review is whether the rule ‘exceeds the statutory authority of the agency.’ ” Pulito, 366 Or at 618 (quoting ORS 183.400(4)(b)). “ ‘Authority,’ as used in ORS 183.400(4)(b), does not refer to only the agency’s overall ‘jurisdiction.’ ” Pulito, 366 Or at 618 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Pender v. Builders Board
neutral
2 sentences1990See Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., supra, 297 Or. at 573 n. 7, 687 P.2d 785 ; Pender v. Builders Board, 291 Or. 562, 565 , 633 P.2d 780 (1981). 1990See Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., supra, 297 Or. at 573 n. 7, 687 P.2d 785 ; Pender v. Builders Board, 291 Or. 562, 565 , 633 P.2d 780 (1981). | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission
green
2 sentences2016This court has explained that the standard for a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is “foreign to the administrative law of this state” when the court is reviewing “what at bottom simply are challenges to the validity of an administrative rule.” See Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (S055772), 346 Or 366, 375-76 , 213 P3d 1164 (2009) (Court of Appeals had erred in concluding that a management plan should be reviewed under federal standard for determining the constitutionality of statute, which was whether the statute “cannot be applied consistently with the law u 2016This court has explained that the standard for a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is “foreign to the administrative law of this state” when the court is reviewing “what at bottom simply are challenges to the validity of an administrative rule.” See Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (S055772), 346 Or 366, 375-76 , 213 P3d 1164 (2009) (Court of Appeals had erred in concluding that a management plan should be reviewed under federal standard for determining the constitutionality of statute, which was whether the statute “cannot be applied consistently with the law u | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Coats v. State
green
1 sentence2013The court explained that, as a general rule, one who seeks to challenge the validity of an administrative rule must do so in accordance with the rule-challenge provisions of the APA. 334 Or at 595 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Alto v. State Ex Rel. State Fire Marshal
green
2 sentences2002This court rejected that argument, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the trial court had had jurisdiction because “[t]he complaint meets Hay’s requirement of a ‘separate civil action’ that seeks relief, such as injunctive relief, that is broader in scope than the invalidation of a rule on its face.” Alto v. State Fire Marshal, 121 Or App 543, 549 , 855 P2d 649 (1993). 2002This court rejected that argument, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the trial court had had jurisdiction because “[t]he complaint meets Hay’s requirement of a ‘separate civil action’ that seeks relief, such as injunctive relief, that is broader in scope than the invalidation of a rule on its face.” Alto v. State Fire Marshal, 121 Or App 543, 549 , 855 P2d 649 (1993). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hay v. Oregon Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences1993ORS 183.400 provides, in part: “(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon a petition by any person to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided for review of orders in contested cases. * * * “(2) The validity of any applicable rule may also be determined by a court, upon review of an order in any manner provided by law or pursuant to ORS 183.480 or upon enforcement of such rule or order in the manner provided by law.” In Oregon Bankers Assn. v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 102 Or App 539, 544 , 796 P2d 366 (1990), we held that a rule challenge under ORS 183.400(1) is confined to an ad 1993ORS 183.400 provides, in part: "(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon a petition by any person to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided for review of orders in contested cases. * * * "(2) The validity of any applicable rule may also be determined by a court, upon review of an order in any manner provided by law or pursuant to ORS 183.480 or upon enforcement of such rule or order in the manner provided by law." In Oregon Bankers Assn. v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 102 Or.App. 539, 544 , 796 P.2d 366 (1990), we held that a rule challenge *652 under ORS 183.400(1) is confined t | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor
green
1 sentence1993We held that “newspaper carriers and vendors are a ‘true class’ in the sense that they are identified in the regulation by characteristics which they have apart from the regulation itself, i.e., the sale and distribution of a particular product.” 96 Or App at 142 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
OREGON BANKERS v. Bureau of Labor & Ind.
green
2 sentences1993ORS 183.400 provides, in part: “(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon a petition by any person to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided for review of orders in contested cases. * * * “(2) The validity of any applicable rule may also be determined by a court, upon review of an order in any manner provided by law or pursuant to ORS 183.480 or upon enforcement of such rule or order in the manner provided by law.” In Oregon Bankers Assn. v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 102 Or App 539, 544 , 796 P2d 366 (1990), we held that a rule challenge under ORS 183.400(1) is confined to an ad 1993ORS 183.400 provides, in part: "(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon a petition by any person to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided for review of orders in contested cases. * * * "(2) The validity of any applicable rule may also be determined by a court, upon review of an order in any manner provided by law or pursuant to ORS 183.480 or upon enforcement of such rule or order in the manner provided by law." In Oregon Bankers Assn. v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 102 Or.App. 539, 544 , 796 P.2d 366 (1990), we held that a rule challenge *652 under ORS 183.400(1) is confined t | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Oregon Bankers Ass'n v. State
green
2 sentences1993ORS 183.400 provides, in part: “(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon a petition by any person to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided for review of orders in contested cases. * * * “(2) The validity of any applicable rule may also be determined by a court, upon review of an order in any manner provided by law or pursuant to ORS 183.480 or upon enforcement of such rule or order in the manner provided by law.” In Oregon Bankers Assn. v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 102 Or App 539, 544 , 796 P2d 366 (1990), we held that a rule challenge under ORS 183.400(1) is confined to an ad 1993ORS 183.400 provides, in part: "(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon a petition by any person to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided for review of orders in contested cases. * * * "(2) The validity of any applicable rule may also be determined by a court, upon review of an order in any manner provided by law or pursuant to ORS 183.480 or upon enforcement of such rule or order in the manner provided by law." In Oregon Bankers Assn. v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 102 Or.App. 539, 544 , 796 P.2d 366 (1990), we held that a rule challenge *652 under ORS 183.400(1) is confined t | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.
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.