183.410 Agency
determination of applicability of rule or statute to petitioner; effect;
judicial review.
On petition of any interested person, any agency may in its discretion issue a
declaratory ruling with respect to the applicability to any person, property,
or state of facts of any rule or statute enforceable by it. A declaratory
ruling is binding between the agency and the petitioner on the state of facts
alleged, unless it is altered or set aside by a court. However, the agency may,
where the ruling is adverse to the petitioner, review the ruling and alter it
if requested by the petitioner. Binding rulings provided by this section are
subject to review in the Court of Appeals in the manner provided in ORS 183.480
for the review of orders in contested cases. The Attorney General shall
prescribe by rule the form for such petitions and the procedure for their
submission, consideration and disposition. The petitioner shall have the right
to submit briefs and present oral argument at any declaratory ruling proceeding
held pursuant to this section. [1957 c.717 §7; 1971 c.734 §10; 1973 c.612 §5]
(Contested Cases)
Notes of Decisions
Bay v. State Bd. of Educ., 378 P.2d 558 (Or. 1963).
· cites it 6× “Any hearing under ORS 183.410 should have been before the superintendent and not before the State Board of Education.”
Oregon State Denturist Ass'n v. Bd. of Dentistry, 19 P.3d 986 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “The Oregon State Denturist Association (OSDA) seeks review of the Oregon Board of Dentistry’s (Board) modified declaratory ruling, ORS 183.410, that determined, inter alia, that certain dental appliances were not “dentures” as defined in ORS 680.”
Lane Council of Governments v. Lane Council of Governments Employes Ass'n, 563 P.2d 729 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 7× “We also held that the stipulation by the parties pending appeal that the proceeding before ERB be considered as a petition for a "declaratory ruling” under ORS 183.410 was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals to review that order as a "declaratory ruling.”
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 668 P.2d 416 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “484; “(b) Judicial review of a declaratory ruling provided in ORS 183.410; or “(c) A judicial determination of the validity of a rule as provided in ORS 183.”
Douglas Cnty. v. Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 525 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “In January 2022, the North Umpqua Coalition (NUC), comprised of fly fishers and wild fish proponents, peti- tioned the commission for a declaratory ruling under ORS 183.410. The petition requested the commission to prohibit the department from “[r]eleasing hatchery steelhead…”
Brown v. Adult & Fam. Servs., 643 P.2d 1266 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 2× “484; "(b) Judicial review of a declaratory ruling provided in ORS 183.410; or "(c) A judicial determination of the validity of a rule as provided in ORS 183.”
Walter v. Scherzinger, 89 P.3d 1265 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “1 See *358 ORS 183.410; OAR 115-015-0000.* 2 Petitioners argued that, because the CCSL provides “the only legal method by which the District may hire custodial workers,” the contracting proposal would violate the law.”
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “315(1), which expressly exempts the board from "ORS 183.410, 183.415, 183.425, 183.440, 183.”
Reynolds v. State Bd. of Naturopathic Examiners, 722 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “We, therefore, do not decide whether plaintiff was obliged to seek a declaratory ruling pursuant to ORS 183.410 before seeking judicial relief.”
Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 77 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “484; "(b) Judicial review of a declaratory ruling provided in ORS 183.410; or "(c) A judicial determination of the validity of a rule as provided in ORS 183.”
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.