Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415 (2026)

Notice of right to hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

183.415 Notice of right to hearing. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that persons affected by actions taken by state agencies have a right to be informed of their rights and remedies with respect to the actions.

(2) In a contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice, served personally or by registered or certified mail.

(3) Notice under this section must include:

(a) A statement of the party’s right to hearing, with a description of the procedure and time to request a hearing, or a statement of the time and place of the hearing;

(b) A statement of the authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;

(d) A short and plain statement of the matters asserted or charged;

(e) A statement indicating whether and under what circumstances an order by default may be entered; and

(f) A statement that active duty servicemembers have a right to stay proceedings under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and may contact the Oregon State Bar or the Oregon Military Department for more information. The statement must include the toll-free telephone numbers for the Oregon State Bar and the Oregon Military Department and the Internet address for the United States Armed Forces Legal Assistance Legal Services Locator website. [1971 c.734 §13; 1979 c.593 §18; 1985 c.757 §1; 1997 c.837 §2; 1999 c.849 §§27,28; 2003 c.75 §29; 2007 c.288 §2; 2013 c.295 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 121 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 27 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 27 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 19× “” As the parties frame the issue, the question is whether the notice the Board gave met the requirements of ORS 183.415; that is, the Board does not dispute that, by objecting to the admission of evidence on consent, petitioner preserved his claim that the Board had failed to…”

Sachdev v. Or. Med. Bd., 426 P.3d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 23× “The board defended its notice by asserting that it contained a clear and detailed statement of the matters charged and was sufficiently detailed to allow the preparation of a defense and, therefore, was adequate for purposes of ORS 183.415's requirements. Id . at 355, 27 P.”

Ceaser v. Dept. of Human Servs., 493 P.3d 66 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13× “” In response, DHS contends that the original suspension letter provided adequate notice and complied with ORS 183.415, and that ORS 411.103(1) permitted notice by regular mail in this case.”

Norden v. State, Water Resources Dept., 996 P.2d 958 (Or. 2000). · cites it 4× “Council, 307 Or at 37 ; ORS 183.415 to ORS 183.470. Orders in contested cases are subject to review by the Court of Appeals, ORS 183.”

Oregon Env't Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 761 P.2d 1322 (Or. 1988). · cites it 6× “are entitled to appear and be heard; "(B) Where the agency has discretion to suspend or revoke a right or privilege of a person; "(C) For the suspension, revocation or refusal to renew or issue a license where the licensee or applicant for a license demands such hearing; or "(D)…”

ETU, Inc. v. Env't Quality Comm'n, 162 P.3d 248 (Or. 2007). · cites it 16× “745 specifically addresses service of orders assessing civil penalties and, under that statute, default final orders assessing civil penalties need not be served at all, “so long as service of the initial notice [of the assessment of the civil penalty] was provided in accordance…”

Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). · cites it 2× “ORS 183.415. Only parties are given notice and only they are entitled to be heard and present evidence.”

Drayton v. Dep't of Transp., 62 P.3d 430 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “According to *10 petitioner, under ORS 183.415, the department was obligated to provide notice of any administrative rule on which the department intended to rely.”

Fairbanks v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 913 P.2d 703 (Or. 1996). · cites it 7× ““(C) For the suspension, revocation, or refusal to renew or issue a license where the licensee or applicant for a license demands such a hearing; or “(D) Where the agency by rule or order provides for hearings substantially of the character required by ORS…”

Grog House, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 507 P.2d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 9× “② With the exception of ORS 183.415 (2)(d), the provisions of ORS 183.”

State v. Ratliff, 744 P.2d 247 (Or. 1987). · cites it 2× “ORS 183.415(10). The issues which may be addressed are limited by statute.”

Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 39 P.3d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “We also explained that, to the extent the substantial compliance doctrine applies, the Board’s notice did not substantially comply with ORS 183.415. Id. at 356-58 . We reasoned: “This is not a case in which the rule that was allegedly violated was apparent to both the Board and…”

Show all 121 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(1) — 14 cases

Bennett v. Bd. of Optometry, 865 P.2d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Norden v. State, Water Resources Dept., 996 P.2d 958 (Or. 2000). “Council, 307 Or at 37 ; ORS 183.415 to ORS 183.470. Orders in contested cases are subject to review by the Court of Appeals, ORS 183.”

Sch. Dist. No. 1, Multnomah Cnty. v. Nilsen, 534 P.2d 1135 (Or. 1975).

Grog House, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 507 P.2d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “② With the exception of ORS 183.415 (2)(d), the provisions of ORS 183.”

ETU, Inc. v. Env't Quality Comm'n, 162 P.3d 248 (Or. 2007). “745 specifically addresses service of orders assessing civil penalties and, under that statute, default final orders assessing civil penalties need not be served at all, “so long as service of the initial notice [of the assessment of the civil penalty] was provided in accordance…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(10) — 9 cases

Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

State v. Ratliff, 744 P.2d 247 (Or. 1987). “ORS 183.415(10). The issues which may be addressed are limited by statute.”

Dennis v. Emp. Div., 728 P.2d 12 (Or. 1986).

Adams v. Bd. of Clinical Soc. Workers, 119 P.3d 260 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(11) — 3 cases

O'NEIL v. Nat'l Union Fire, 954 P.2d 847 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Stand. Ins. v. Olin, 725 P.2d 934 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(11)(a) — 1 case

Arlington Educ. Ass'n v. Arlington Sch. Dist. No. 3, 34 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(11)(g) — 1 case

Bob Wilkes Falling, Inc. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 816 P.2d 1172 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(11)(h) — 1 case

Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(12) — 1 case

Smith v. Veterinary Med. Examining Bd., 27 P.3d 1081 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(2) — 15 cases

Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 27 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “” As the parties frame the issue, the question is whether the notice the Board gave met the requirements of ORS 183.415; that is, the Board does not dispute that, by objecting to the admission of evidence on consent, petitioner preserved his claim that the Board had failed to…”

Grog House, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 507 P.2d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “② With the exception of ORS 183.415 (2)(d), the provisions of ORS 183.”

Ceaser v. Dept. of Human Servs., 493 P.3d 66 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “” In response, DHS contends that the original suspension letter provided adequate notice and complied with ORS 183.415, and that ORS 411.103(1) permitted notice by regular mail in this case.”

Drayton v. Dep't of Transp., 62 P.3d 430 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “According to *10 petitioner, under ORS 183.415, the department was obligated to provide notice of any administrative rule on which the department intended to rely.”

Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 39 P.3d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “We also explained that, to the extent the substantial compliance doctrine applies, the Board’s notice did not substantially comply with ORS 183.415. Id. at 356-58 . We reasoned: “This is not a case in which the rule that was allegedly violated was apparent to both the Board and…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(2)(b) — 2 cases

Taylor's Coffee Shop, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 560 P.2d 693 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Farley v. Motor Vehs. Div., 769 P.2d 781 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(2)(c) — 6 cases

Hay v. Motor Vehs. Div., 713 P.2d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 651 P.2d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(2)(d) — 5 cases

Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 651 P.2d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Stalder v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 588 P.2d 659 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Turnquist v. Emp. Div., 694 P.2d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Keller, 854 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(3) — 12 cases

Sachdev v. Or. Med. Bd., 426 P.3d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “The board defended its notice by asserting that it contained a clear and detailed statement of the matters charged and was sufficiently detailed to allow the preparation of a defense and, therefore, was adequate for purposes of ORS 183.415's requirements. Id . at 355, 27 P.”

State v. Ratliff, 744 P.2d 247 (Or. 1987). “ORS 183.415(10). The issues which may be addressed are limited by statute.”

OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co., 514 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Sachdev v. Oregon Med. Bd., 494 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(3)(c) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(3)(d) — 3 cases

Bill Babeckos Trust v. Dept. of State Lands (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(5) — 2 cases

Smith v. Real Est. Agency, 939 P.2d 77 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 651 P.2d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(5)(a) — 1 case

Pahl v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 993 P.2d 149 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(5)(b) — 2 cases

Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 992 P.2d 434 (Or. 1999).

Richards v. Bd. of Parole, 118 P.3d 261 (Or. 2005).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(7) — 6 cases

Berwick v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 703 P.2d 994 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Fairbanks v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 913 P.2d 703 (Or. 1996). ““(C) For the suspension, revocation, or refusal to renew or issue a license where the licensee or applicant for a license demands such a hearing; or “(D) Where the agency by rule or order provides for hearings substantially of the character required by ORS…”

Frasier v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 17 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Stanfill v. Real Est. Div., 581 P.2d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Oregon Bus. Plan. Council v. Dep't of Land Conservation, & Dev., 619 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(7)(b) — 1 case

1000 Friends of or. v. Multnomah Cty., Etc., 593 P.2d 1171 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(7)(f) — 1 case

Stanfill v. Real Est. Div., 581 P.2d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(8) — 2 cases

Samuel v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 712 P.2d 132 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(9) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.415(ll)(h) — 1 case

Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Div., 941 P.2d 593 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

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.