Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315 (2026)

Application of provisions of chapter to certain agencies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      183.315 Application of provisions of chapter to certain agencies. (1) The provisions of ORS 183.410, 183.415, 183.417, 183.425, 183.440, 183.450, 183.452, 183.458, 183.460, 183.470 and 183.480 do not apply to local government boundary commissions created pursuant to ORS 199.430, the Department of Revenue, State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation, Department of Consumer and Business Services with respect to its functions under ORS chapters 654 and 656, State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision or Psychiatric Security Review Board with respect to its functions under ORS 161.315 to 161.351.

      (2) This chapter does not apply with respect to actions of the Governor authorized under ORS chapter 240 and ORS 396.125 or actions of the Adjutant General authorized under ORS 396.160 (14).

      (3) The provisions of ORS 183.410, 183.415, 183.417, 183.425, 183.440, 183.450, 183.452, 183.458 and 183.460 do not apply to the Employment Appeals Board or the Employment Department.

      (4) The Employment Department shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter to the extent that a formal finding of the United States Secretary of Labor is made that such provision conflicts with the terms of the federal law, acceptance of which by the state is a condition precedent to continued certification by the United States Secretary of Labor of the state’s law.

      (5) The provisions of ORS 183.415 to 183.430, 183.440 to 183.460, 183.470 to 183.485 and 183.490 to 183.500 do not apply to orders issued to persons who:

      (a) Have been committed pursuant to ORS 137.124 to the custody of the Department of Corrections or are otherwise confined in a Department of Corrections facility; or

      (b) Seek to visit an adult in custody confined in a Department of Corrections facility.

      (6) ORS 183.410, 183.415, 183.417, 183.425, 183.440, 183.450, 183.460, 183.470 and 183.482 (3) do not apply to the Public Utility Commission. Except as provided in ORS 774.180, judicial review of an order issued by the commission in a contested case may be sought only by a party to the contested case.

      (7) The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the suspension, cancellation or termination of an apprenticeship or training agreement under ORS 660.060.

      (8) The provisions of ORS 183.413 to 183.497 do not apply to administrative proceedings conducted under rules adopted by the Secretary of State under ORS 246.190. [1971 c.734 §19; 1973 c.612 §3; 1973 c.621 §2; 1973 c.694 §1; 1975 c.759 §1; 1977 c.804 §45; 1979 c.593 §7; 1981 c.711 §16; 1987 c.320 §142; 1987 c.373 §21; 1989 c.90 §1; 1997 c.26 §1; 1999 c.448 §6; 1999 c.679 §1; 2003 c.64 §8; 2005 c.512 §30; 2005 c.638 §1; 2007 c.239 §8; 2007 c.288 §10; 2011 c.708 §24; 2017 c.312 §1; 2017 c.442 §23; 2019 c.213 §54]

 

      183.317 [1971 c.734 §187; repealed by 1979 c.593 §34]

 

      183.320 [1957 c.717 §15; repealed by 1971 c.734 §21]

 

(Adoption of Rules)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 101 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “105(3) (1977) required that review hearings be conducted in accordance with the contested case procedures set out in the APA, among those provisions of the APA is ORS 183.315(1), which expressly exempts the board from "ORS 183.”
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “See ORS 183.315. The effect of the rule is to require the Board to meet the evidentiary standard embodied in the rule notwithstanding the exemption that ORS 183.”
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). · cites it 3× “) If the board were subject to ORS 183.470(2), the resolution of this case might be less complicated.”
Harris v. Bd. of Parole, 614 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “Although the Parole Board is exempt from some parts of the Administrative Procedures Act, ORS 183.315(1), it has not been exempted from ORS 183.”
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991). · cites it 6× “However, another statute, ORS 183.315, lists certain agencies to which the privilege-protecting statute does not apply.”
Sterling v. Cupp, 625 P.2d 123 (Or. 1981). · cites it 2× “ORS 183.315(5). But "rules" and "orders" within the Oregon Administrative Procedure Act — terms originally conceived to describe regulatory actions addressed to private parties and later expanded to include actions addressed to agency beneficiaries and employees, see ORS 183.”
Mendacino v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 404 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “12 *838 Here, petitioner argues that the board’s order relied too heavily on the “unchangeable circumstance” of his historical behaviors, including the murder itself, without accounting for the evidence that weighed against its decision other than to state that it had considered…”
Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 343 P.3d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “See ORS 183.315 (explicitly so stating). 7 Thus, ORS 183.”
Mastriano v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 159 P.3d 1151 (Or. 2007). “” See ORS 183.315(1) and (5) (listing provisions of APA that do not apply to board orders).”
Atkinson v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 143 P.3d 538 (Or. 2006). · cites it 2× “) ORS 183.315 has been amended several times since 1983.”
Anaconda Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 565 P.2d 1084 (Or. 1977). · cites it 2× “See ORS 183.315(1). [1] Anaconda paid some corporate excise taxes after the opinion and order of the Department of Revenue was issued.”
Martin v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 957 P.2d 1210 (Or. 1998). · cites it 2× “ORS 183.315(1) provides: “Except as otherwise provided [in a section unrelated to the Board], the provisions of ORS * * * 183.”
Show all 101 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315(1) — 55 cases
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “105(3) (1977) required that review hearings be conducted in accordance with the contested case procedures set out in the APA, among those provisions of the APA is ORS 183.315(1), which expressly exempts the board from "ORS 183.”
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). “) If the board were subject to ORS 183.470(2), the resolution of this case might be less complicated.”
Harris v. Bd. of Parole, 614 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Although the Parole Board is exempt from some parts of the Administrative Procedures Act, ORS 183.315(1), it has not been exempted from ORS 183.”
Mendacino v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 404 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “12 *838 Here, petitioner argues that the board’s order relied too heavily on the “unchangeable circumstance” of his historical behaviors, including the murder itself, without accounting for the evidence that weighed against its decision other than to state that it had considered…”
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “See ORS 183.315. The effect of the rule is to require the Board to meet the evidentiary standard embodied in the rule notwithstanding the exemption that ORS 183.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315(3) — 4 cases
Opp v. Emp. Dep't & Youssef, Inc., 259 P.3d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Dennis v. Emp. Div., 728 P.2d 12 (Or. 1986).
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 50 P.3d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Turnquist v. Emp. Div., 694 P.2d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315(4) — 1 case
Fowler v. Or. St. Corr. Inst., Cor. Div, 525 P.2d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315(5) — 13 cases
Sterling v. Cupp, 625 P.2d 123 (Or. 1981). “ORS 183.315(5). But "rules" and "orders" within the Oregon Administrative Procedure Act — terms originally conceived to describe regulatory actions addressed to private parties and later expanded to include actions addressed to agency beneficiaries and employees, see ORS 183.”
Harris v. Bd. of Parole, 614 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Although the Parole Board is exempt from some parts of the Administrative Procedures Act, ORS 183.315(1), it has not been exempted from ORS 183.”
Stelljes v. State Bd. of Parole, 769 P.2d 177 (Or. 1989).
Taylor v. Bd. of Parole, 115 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Evans v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 743 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315(5)(a) — 3 cases
Taylor v. Bd. of Parole, 115 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Taylor v. Bd. of Parole, 115 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Baize v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 256 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315(5)(b) — 1 case
Rutherford v. Oregon State Penitentiary, Etc., 592 P.2d 1028 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.315(6) — 4 cases
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
Wah Chang v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 301 P.3d 934 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Util. Reform Proj. v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 16 P.3d 516 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Gearhart v. PUC (Or. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.