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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.325 (2026)

Delegation of rulemaking authority to named officer or employee

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

      183.325 Delegation of rulemaking authority to named officer or employee. Unless otherwise provided by law, an agency may delegate its rulemaking authority to an officer or employee within the agency. A delegation of authority under this section must be made in writing and filed with the Secretary of State before the filing of any rule adopted pursuant to the delegation. A delegation under this section may be made only to one or more named individuals. The delegation of authority shall reflect the name of the authorized individual or individuals, and be signed in acknowledgment by the named individuals. Any officer or employee to whom rulemaking authority is delegated under this section is an “agency” for the purposes of the rulemaking requirements of this chapter. [1979 c.593 §10; 1993 c.729 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018). · cites it 3× “ORS 183.325, however, is of some interest to the court.”
State v. Robbins, 188 P.3d 262 (Or. 2008). “410, but rather are adopted by a joint order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals pursuant to the statutory authority previously cited, we see no reason not to apply the same interpretive method here, and we have done so.”
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “245, or by promulgating new or amended administrative rules, in accordance with ORS chapter 197 and ORS 183.325 to 183.410. Because 1000 Friends objected to the exceptions criteria as a legally deficient basis for justifying all the Goal 3 and 4 exceptions areas, and we have…”
Marshall's Towing v. Dep't of State Police, 116 P.3d 873 (Or. 2005). “The concern is made more palpable by the existence elsewhere (in ORS 183.325) of specific statutory authority for persons such as the Superintendent to delegate rule-making authority.”
Dunn v. City of Redmond, 735 P.2d 609 (Or. 1987). “086 assigns to the Employment Relations Board (ERB) the duty to “review and enforce” arbitration awards involving state employees in collective bargaining units and the duty to “review any personnel actions” affecting state employees not-in collective bargaining units.”
Wasco Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Local No. 2752, 613 P.2d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “The first mode of response is that urged by petitioner, adoption of the rule pursuant to the APA’s provisions for legislative rule-making now found at ORS 183.325 to 183.410. 5 The second alternative for adopting the rule, the one the Board used on remand, was that implied by…”
Forelaws on Bd. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 760 P.2d 212 (Or. 1988). “) 7 Although any administrative proceeding in which a rule is adopted could in some sense be regarded as a “rulemaking proceeding,” we use the phrase “rulemaking proceeding” to refer to the procedure for adopting rules set forth in ORS 183.”
Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 284 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “See ORS 183.325 - 183.410 (setting out those procedures).”
Osborn v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 851 P.2d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “387(1) provides: “The Psychiatric Security Review Board, by rule pursuant to ORS 183.325 to 183.410 and not inconsistent with law, may implement its policies and set out its procedure and practice requirements and may promulgate such interpretive rules as the board deems…”
Jansen v. Atiyeh, 743 P.2d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “ORS 183.325; ORS 351.072. The parties agree that there was no reason for the court’s distinction between non-Board students who attend educational institutions within Oregon and non-students and out-of-state students to whom the Board does not provide organized higher or…”
Vidicraft, Inc. v. Dep't of Econ. Dev., 684 P.2d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “Plaintiffs primary argument is that the Commission’s recommendation that the area in which it is located be decertified constituted a rule and that the Commission therefore had to follow the rulemaking procedures of ORS 183.325 through 183.410 before making it.”
Lemma Wine Co. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 95 P.3d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “But that does not necessarily mean that the agency’s approval of a private sector standard makes the standard itself a “rule” within the meaning of the APA.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.325(2) — 1 case
Smith v. Dep't of Corr., 804 P.2d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
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.